Shut Up & BlogBlog's for September, 2017http://www.LauraIngraham.comLaura Ingraham2017-10-16T21:54:14Z2017-10-16T21:54:14ZLaura IngrahamIngraham Cautions Trump: Dreamer Amnesty Deal With Dems Will Cost the Support of populist conservative baseStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Ingraham-Cautions-Trump:-Dreamer-Amnesty-Deal-With-Dems-Will-Cost-the-Support-of-populist-conservative-base/602317353358691936.html2017-09-15T14:31:00Z2017-09-15T14:31:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br>On Thursday&rsquo;s Laura Ingraham Show, the phone lines were jammed for three hours with outraged Trump voters. Hailing from Florida, Iowa, Arizona, Texas and everywhere in between,men and women who supported President Trump&rsquo;s &ldquo;America First&rdquo; agenda expressed their deep disappointment and anger after reports that he had cut a DREAMer amnesty deal with Democrat leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. Although the White House has attempted to mollify the concerns of conservative supporters since the news broke late Wednesday night,listeners threatened to abandon the president if he gives away legalization without first securing specific, serious border enforcement and immigration measures&mdash;including wall funding.&ldquo;The ultimate betrayal,&rdquo; &ldquo;unforgivable,&rdquo; &ldquo;another typical politician,&rdquo; and &ldquo;Establishment sell-out&rdquo; were among the comments from irate listeners from across the nation. (And those were the more charitable ones!)<br /><br /><strong>[<a href="https://www.lauraingraham.com/b/Ingraham-Callers-Speak-Out/274914998893551706.html" target="_blank">LISTEN HERE</a>]</strong> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Ingraham-Cautions-Trump:-Dreamer-Amnesty-Deal-With-Dems-Will-Cost-the-Support-of-populist-conservative-base/602317353358691936.htmlStaff2017-09-15T14:31:00ZJudge Gorsuch Should NOT Distance From the WH; Bad Advice & TacticsStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Judge-Gorsuch-Should-NOT-Distance-From-the-WH;-Bad-Advice--Tactics/-368449300521356740.html2017-02-09T16:13:00Z2017-02-09T16:13:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>That advice is absurd, comments totally inappropriate about the Prez....This president made him and he could have chosen someone else.</p>
<p>The Dems are the enemy, Sessions could only get 1 Dem after a man of that integrity...time to do the Nuclear option...</p>
<p>I want a good jurist that reads and understands the Constitution, I don't want any more Kennedy's or Roberts....we want someone like Thomas and Scalia.</p>
<p>Administration &nbsp;needs to focus on one topic, stay on the message...to many surrogates on TV at one time etc..</p>
<p>&nbsp;Get out in the country again...we need to tell the people.</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Judge-Gorsuch-Should-NOT-Distance-From-the-WH;-Bad-Advice--Tactics/-368449300521356740.htmlStaff2017-02-09T16:13:00ZThe Media's Newfound Obsession About President Trump's Chief StrategistStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/The-Medias-Newfound-Obsession-About-President-Trumps-Chief-Strategist/-623890455771781094.html2017-02-07T22:41:00Z2017-02-07T22:41:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><strong>Today on The Laura Ingraham Show, Laura ripped into the media's newfound obsessions about President Trump's Chief Strategist, Steve Bannon. She said that the media will do anything to say Bannon is trying to make a name out of himself, but he is far from the kind of person to run to the media for attention, given his well-documented disdain for the institution as a whole. The media got all of the issues wrong in the 2016 election, Ingraham reminds her audience, so they have no credibility or leg to stand on. They cannot lecture the American voters anymore.</strong><br /><br /><strong>[<a href="http://lauradl.noxsolutions.com/mp3/laura_020717_hour1blockA.mp3" target="_blank">INGRAHAM DEFENDS BANNON</a>]</strong><br />
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Laura</strong>: The media is obsessed. It has become a mild, excuse me, a serious obsession on the part of the kids over at MSNBC. What would they talk about? The show would be about 3 minutes long if Steve Bannon didn&rsquo;t exist. You know Justice Thomas said to me once, and I&rsquo;m sure he wouldn&rsquo;t mind my repeating this, that about 80 to 90 percent of what is said about you that is negative is based in jealousy. <br /><br />Do you ever get the sense that Old Joe is just, he feels like he&rsquo;s losing that connection with Donald Trump, that Bannon has kind of edged him out as the favorite, go-to guy, giving advice? I have an idea. If Scarborough can do it so much better, why doesn&rsquo;t he leave his several million dollar a year gig on a network that nobody watches and go help the country? Why doesn&rsquo;t he step up? But this idea that Steve Bannon, anyone who knows Bannon knows he doesn&rsquo;t speak to the press, and I&rsquo;ve known him for about, I don&rsquo;t know, 18 years. He rarely speaks to the press. He gave that one little interview, but he is not someone who wants, you know he&rsquo;s not a press hound, for himself personally. He cares about the issues. He wants to accomplish what Trump campaigned on. That&rsquo;s what he wants to do. And I&rsquo;m not saying he&rsquo;s going to get everything right, nobody does. But the idea that Trump would allow the very people who discounted him at every key moment during the campaign, and dismissed him, and maligned him, as the kids at MSNBC did &mdash; when they weren&rsquo;t sucking up to him, by the way. It was always kind of a whiplash deal over there. <br /><br />On the one hand, if Trump called them on the phone it&rsquo;s &ldquo;Oh, Donald!&rdquo;, on the other hand it&rsquo;s &ldquo;Ha! He&rsquo;s going to lose, the question is how bad?&rdquo; And now they actually have a guy in there who&rsquo;s really effective. Really effective. And unafraid. And their goal, clearly, is to try to drive him out of the White House. Now why would that be a goal of the folks over at MSNBC, and you could name a variety of other journalists who have this goal &mdash; I use the term journalist lightly &mdash; because they would much rather prefer one of the &ldquo;political sages&rdquo; of the last 25 years to be inserted into the White House to &ldquo;properly&rdquo; direct the Trump team. So they&rsquo;re &ldquo;properly&rdquo; conducting themselves to, of course, negotiate these lovely trade deals, and perhaps, I don&rsquo;t know, get us into another war in the Middle East. But you can&rsquo;t have this economic populist, you can&rsquo;t have this skeptic of globalization as the president&rsquo;s right hand man. Oh no no no no no. Because that offends the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Aspen Institute, and the Atlantic magazine, and all these other outlets that look down on what the populists want, look down on the idea of nationalism and sovereignty, and they want to be held out as the experts on all of this, despite the fact that most of them were egregiously wrong on, I think a variety of key issues over the last 25 years.<br /><br />They got trade wrong, they got immigration wrong, they got the wars wrong, they got key elements of this last year and a half wrong when it came to covering this election, and yet these people want to be back in charge! See what Scarborough wants to be, they have the horse whisperer, the dog whisperer, he wants to be the Cesar Milan to Donald Trump. Like he&rsquo;s Cesar Milan! See what Bannon thinks is that Trump is actually a smart guy. He doesn&rsquo;t think Trump has to be trained, he thinks Trump has to be allowed to accomplish what he campaigned on. Doesn&rsquo;t mean Trump can&rsquo;t improve, doesn&rsquo;t mean Trump can&rsquo;t recalibrate strategy, all that is fine. But the idea that putting a trophy on the wall with Steve Bannon&rsquo;s head on it &mdash; or, you know, here&rsquo;s who they want to get rid of: Miller, they want to get rid of Miller, they want to get rid of Bannon, they want to get rid of anyone connected to them, Kellyanne &mdash; they want all of them out! So they can insert the establishment clique back into the White House. That is what they really want. That is what&rsquo;s really going on here. That&rsquo;s why Bannon was on the cover of Time Magazine. That&rsquo;s why Saturday Night Live is doing the caricature of the Grim Reaper. Because that&rsquo;s the narrative they want to set, and they know that the culture, using satire and humor &mdash; and I&rsquo;m not saying it wasn&rsquo;t funny, it was funny &mdash; but they&rsquo;re really good at cementing the narrative to then try to turn the ideological tide against whoever happens to be in power.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">###</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/The-Medias-Newfound-Obsession-About-President-Trumps-Chief-Strategist/-623890455771781094.htmlStaff2017-02-07T22:41:00ZThe Media & Establishment Work Together to Make Trump Uneasy About Bannon's Role in WHStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/The-Media--Establishment-Work-Together-to-Make-Trump-Uneasy-About-Bannons-Role-in-WH/-365309462226019135.html2017-02-07T01:44:00Z2017-02-07T01:44:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br>Today on The Laura Ingraham Show, Laura discussed the media's obsession with Steve Bannon and dug into their real intentions. She believes that President Trump needs to remember the people who brought him to this point, including Steve Bannon. He must remember his message, one of populism, not one of establishment politics. The media and the establishment are working together to make Trump feel uneasy about Bannon's role in the White House, essentially pretending he's the President with the Time Magazine cover and endless discussion on him. While it might be useful to have experienced White House officials around him at times, the most important dynamic is Trump and his inner circle, who must figure things out for themselves.<br /><br />[<a href="http://lauradl.noxsolutions.com/mp3/laura_020617_hour2blockAandB.mp3" target="_blank"><strong>INGRAHAM DEFENDS BANNON</strong></a>]<br />
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">I&rsquo;ve been around Washington so long that it&rsquo;s easy for me to see who&rsquo;s doing what and why. Look for the motivation here &ndash; who benefits if they&rsquo;re able to push Steve Bannon out of the White House? The GOP Establishment benefits, absolutely. They want to try to capture the Trump outlook, the Trump access, the Trump brain if they can. They want full-unfettered access to Donald Trump, day in and day out. They don&rsquo;t want other voices in the room, they don&rsquo;t want other ears in the room. It might take awhile to get there, but they&rsquo;re gonna get there.<br /><br />Now what do I mean, so all this scuttlebutt about how Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller are running the show. Scarborough is right about this: Trump is the guy who&rsquo;s making the calls. Maybe he&rsquo;s not getting into the granular detail about the court filings, that&rsquo;s not his job. He should have people in place to do that. I will say this. The people who have, I think, a vested interest in seeing the populists pushed out are the very people who operate on behalf of the establishment: lobbyists, folks on Capitol Hill, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner has a lot of old pals on Capitol Hill, and Paul Ryan. Every time the media will highlight a Trump, they will say misstep, they say he shouldn&rsquo;t have said that, he shouldn&rsquo;t have tweeted that. I think what they&rsquo;re trying to do - They&rsquo;re trying to use that to undermine his confidence. See you have amateurs. It&rsquo;s amateur hour, Karl Rove wrote last week in the Wall Street Journal. So if Trump starts believing that his real problem is these populist people, they&rsquo;re the real problem, they&rsquo;re good enough to help during the campaign, but governing, they can&rsquo;t do it, they can&rsquo;t help, they don&rsquo;t know what they&rsquo;re doing. Forget it, you gotta push out the ideologues and go for the time-tested and experience-worn folks who have already been in the White House. They&rsquo;ve been there, they&rsquo;ve lived it, and they&rsquo;ve breathed it.<br /><br />It will be very perilous for Donald Trump to forget what brought him to power. It was an economic message of populism. It was an America-first message in national security and foreign policy. It was very common sense, we&rsquo;re gonna work with our allies, we&rsquo;d like other NATO countries to contribute more. We don&rsquo;t want to start another war, get involved in another war if we can avoid it. That&rsquo;s what Ronald Reagan believed. We have to conserve as conservatives, conserve our power so we can give our people back at home a better life. He was able to take that message to the American people in rally after rally, state after state, and win back those blue collar voters who had turned off politics altogether, or they had turned to the Democrats. Donald Trump needs to remember those people.<br /><br />Steve Bannon is the new Haliburton, or the Koch Brothers, or whoever your demon of the moment will be for the left. It&rsquo;s the whipping post, Steve Bannon&hellip;Bannon is a symbol for them. This is part of the chess game they&rsquo;re playing. They want to undermine Trump&rsquo;s confidence. Everything is wrong! You can learn from this. Trump said&hellip;that they&rsquo;re going to have a more streamlined process in getting information to him.<br /><br />The idea that Republicans on Capitol Hill are implicitly working with the Democrats in the demonization of Bannon, and I already hear this. They&rsquo;re not going to come out in a microphone and say this. But I tell you, in off the record commentary, they are pushing this anti-Bannon narrative. I don&rsquo;t know what Bannon and Miller are doing late at night &ndash; that&rsquo;s what you do at the White House, you work on things late at night. The idea that they&rsquo;re the problem &ndash; it&rsquo;s just ridiculous. Who&rsquo;s going to come in? You&rsquo;re gonna bring James Baker back at 85 to the White House? Karl Rove, who was wrong about everything for the last year and a half? Bush left office at a 36% approval rating, do you want to bring that back? Or do you just want to have some procedures back in place that are able to corral the great energy that I think exists there and make it work better? That&rsquo;s fine, that&rsquo;s a very positive development &ndash; that looks like it can happen. I&rsquo;m saying this because I don&rsquo;t want the folks listening to the show on Capitol Hill to think that they&rsquo;re gonna get a lot of support in talk radio land for smashing Bannon back, because Bannon is the problem. No, the problem is, we have establishment people who want to get back in power &ndash; the same people who have trashed Trump both on camera and off camera for the past year and a half, because they don&rsquo;t like his agenda.<br /><br />Elise Jordan, move over. Elise, what have you done for strategy, let&rsquo;s talk honestly. As I said, she worked for Bush. How did that work out? I mean come on, you have to stay in this game. Focus on what you want to accomplish&hellip;having a few key people in the White House would have helped, who had some experience in the past. But you see what they&rsquo;re doing, and why they&rsquo;re doing it.<br /><br />You always look for the motivation. Who benefits from that narrative being out there. They want Trump to get ticked off that Bannon is on the cover of Time Magazine. They want Trump to think that Bannon is running around telling people that he&rsquo;s President. Steve Bannon doesn&rsquo;t talk to the media. We know what he thinks about the media &ndash; not really highly. He doesn&rsquo;t speak to the media, off the record or on the record. Miller doesn&rsquo;t speak to the media, on the record or off the record, unless he&rsquo;s on television and is instructed to go out. In general, they&rsquo;re not talking to the media. So, other people are benefiting from that narrative going out there.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/The-Media--Establishment-Work-Together-to-Make-Trump-Uneasy-About-Bannons-Role-in-WH/-365309462226019135.htmlStaff2017-02-07T01:44:00ZThe Press really can't let them get away with thisLaura Ingrahamhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/The-Press-really-cant-let-them-get-away-with-this/973844257826250360.html2016-07-26T01:29:00Z2016-07-26T01:29:00ZPosted By: Laura Ingraham<br><br>So Hillary is opposing TPP, and Obama is supporting it.&nbsp; The Press should force Obama to say whether he intends to press TPP after the election.&nbsp; And then they should force Hillary to say that if she is elected, and TPP passes after the election, then she will withdraw the United States from TPP.<br /><br /><a href="http://files.ctctcdn.com/ef5f8ffe501/88d9d503-65a9-47d2-a952-43be2dc696ee.pdf" target="_blank"><img style="margin: 5px;" src="/images/blog/clintonopposes_TPP.png" alt="" /></a> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/The-Press-really-cant-let-them-get-away-with-this/973844257826250360.htmlLaura Ingraham2016-07-26T01:29:00ZIs his stand principled like Reagan's or just guaranteed political suicide?Laura Ingrahamhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Is-his-stand-principled-like-Reagans-or-just-guaranteed-political-suicide/563853308437582652.html2016-07-25T14:39:00Z2016-07-25T14:39:00ZPosted By: Laura Ingraham<br><br><p>Many of Ted Cruz's die-hard loyalists and other assorted, unhinged&nbsp;NeverTrumpers are still trying to resuscitate him after a disastrous showing at the RNC in Cleveland.&nbsp;Ronald Reagan never formally endorsed Gerald Ford, they argue, and that obviously didn&rsquo;t&nbsp;destroy his&nbsp;political future.</p>
<p>It&rsquo;s true that Reagan was angry and bitter by the end of what was a squeaker of a contested convention. And it&rsquo;s true, of course, that he didn&rsquo;t formally endorse Ford.&nbsp;</p>
<p>But here&rsquo;s how Reagan ended his convention speech in 1976:</p>
<p>&ldquo;This is our challenge; and this is why here in this hall tonight, better than we have ever done before, we have got to quit talking to each other and about each other and go out and communicate to the world that we may be fewer in numbers than we have ever been, but we carry the message they are waiting for.</p>
<p>&ldquo;We must go forth from here united, determined that what a great general said a few years ago is true: There is no substitute for victory, Mr. President.&rdquo;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.nationalcenter.org/ReaganConvention1976.html">http://www.nationalcenter.org/ReaganConvention1976.html</a></p>
<p>If Cruz had ended his speech like that, it would have been interpreted as an endorsement of Trump &ndash; which is why he didn&rsquo;t want to end his speech that way.</p>
<p>Who knows what Reagan intended to do with these comments. Nevertheless Reagan was a political genius who found a way to avoid using the word &ldquo;endorse&rdquo; without sending the GOP &ndash; including his own state delegation &ndash; into a rage against him.&nbsp; Cruz couldn&rsquo;t do that.</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Is-his-stand-principled-like-Reagans-or-just-guaranteed-political-suicide/563853308437582652.htmlLaura Ingraham2016-07-25T14:39:00ZNeverTrump Republicans Sound Like LeftistsStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/NeverTrump-Republicans-Sound-Like-Leftists/298162736700890600.html2016-06-07T15:23:00Z2016-06-07T15:23:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, Daniel McCarthy, editor of The American Conservative, discussed what he deemed the incompetence of the Never Trump movement. Looking towards the general election, McCarthy suggested critics of Donald Trump are making the same mistakes the made in the primary. By lining up behind Hillary Clinton or Gary Johnson, the movement is splitting the anti-Trump vote, &ldquo;making it much easier for Donald Trump, who is really the only anti-Clinton candidate in the race, to win.&rdquo; Ultimately, he said, the Never Trump-ers &ldquo;want to remain comfortable and cozy within the bubble they live in,&rdquo; rather than represent the views of millions of Americans.</p>
<br />Partial Transcript<br />[<a href="/b/Daniel-McCarthy:-iNeverTrump/i-Republicans-Sound-Like-Leftist/-531762919123835870.html" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]<br /><br />***<br />
<p><strong>McCarthy: </strong>It&rsquo;s just remarkable how much some of these Never Trump Republicans sound exactly like Leftists. The way that Leftists talk about Republicans in general is the way that the Never Trump people talk about people like Donald Trump and those who are supporting him. And it&rsquo;s not just Trump &ndash; it&rsquo;s the millions of Americans who voted for him that are completely targeted by these Never Trump Conservatives and Republicans . . . the fact that they sound identical to the Left, I think, really tells you what they&rsquo;re trying to achieve here &ndash; that they want to remain comfortable and cozy within the bubble they live in, within the nice suburbs here in DC, or various other places around the country that are not necessarily reflective of what the American people actually &ndash; where they live and what they stand for. (5:47)</p>
<p><strong>McCarthy: </strong>It&rsquo;s been interesting to watch how incompetent, actually, the critics of Trump have been, because what they&rsquo;re doing now in the general election looks very similar to what they did in the primaries. Some of them are getting behind Hillary Clinton; others are supporting Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate. And what they&rsquo;re doing is actually splitting their own vote. They&rsquo;re actually splitting the anti-Trump vote, and making it much easier for Donald Trump, who is really the only anti-Clinton candidate in the race, making it much easier for him to win. (7:15)</p>
<p><strong>McCarthy: </strong>You&rsquo;re really seeing a return to the national interest, and a return to the idea that America is a nation state. We&rsquo;re not a global policeman, we&rsquo;re not meant to be, you know, a country that looks like the world or something like that. We, in fact, have a particular history, we have a particular tradition. And it&rsquo;s been interesting to watch the division that you see on the Left among the Democrats as well as, you know, much more so than on the Right. But in fact globalization has very strong opponents on the Left among the Bernie Sanders supporters as well as . . . having Conservative Republicans who are interested in the national interest. So this change in American politics, I think, is here to stay. And you&rsquo;ve seen, you know, precursors of it even before this election season, and Donald Trump has really brought it home in a way that the political establishment simply cannot ignore and cannot survive. (9:23)</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/NeverTrump-Republicans-Sound-Like-Leftists/298162736700890600.htmlStaff2016-06-07T15:23:00ZBABIN: Criminal Aliens Granted a 'Revolving Back Door' onto our StreetsStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/BABIN:-Criminal-Aliens-Granted-a-Revolving-Back-Door-onto-our-Streets/-521381899066255215.html2016-06-01T17:08:00Z2016-06-01T17:08:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX) discussed his new bill, the Criminal Alien Deportation Act. This legislation is designed to &ldquo;start twisting the arms&rdquo; of foreign nations that refuse to accept criminal aliens back into their countries. Babin&rsquo;s bill proposes cutting off foreign aid to nations that refuse to cooperate, and immediately cutting off their visa program until they comply.</p>
<p>Since 2013, Babin explained, there have been 86,000 aliens who have committed 231,000 crimes released by this administration and 14,000 of them have been in my home state of Texas. And, just last year, 208 American citizens were murdered. These statistics confirm criminals illegally in this country have &ldquo;revolving door back onto the streets,&rdquo; which inspired Babin to draft the legislation.</p>
<p>Babin is hopefully about The Criminal Alien Deportation Act, claiming it has garnered support from Republicans and Democrats who hope to pressure the administration into placing the safety of the American people over criminal aliens.</p>
<br /><br />Partial Transcript<br />[<a href="/b/BABIN:-Criminal-Aliens-Granted-a-Revolving-Back-Door-onto-our-Streets/677446812790836066.html" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]<br /><br />***<br />
<p><strong>Babin: </strong>I appreciated your two previous callers, one a veteran and one a police officer, who sees first hand what&rsquo;s going on. It is absolutely outrageous that our vet- I&rsquo;m a veteran myself and the veterans cannot get the treatment that illegal aliens get. And especially if you&rsquo;re a police officer, you arrest these people repeatedly and these criminal aliens have this revolving door back on the streets, as you just said. That&rsquo;s why I introduced HR 5224, the Criminal Alien Deportation Act, enforcement act, I should say, which will give teeth to our government so that they can start twisting the arms of these foreign nations that refuse to take these criminal aliens back into their country. (7:29)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: &nbsp;</strong>So, tell me, by the way, why it is not already done because people might not realize it&rsquo;s already required by law that if you commit a crime, you are immediately deported from the United States. My dear friend Conrad Black whose conviction was actually overturned by the US Supreme Court, who&rsquo;s a best selling author, a brilliant historian, he taught American history and French in prison and the Supreme Court overturned his conviction. He was deported. He was told he couldn&rsquo;t come back to the country, this is a man who creates jobs and he&rsquo;s brilliant, I mean it&rsquo;s just the most ridiculous thing. So he can&rsquo;t come in the country, but murderers can stay in the country once they&rsquo;re released from their prison term. &nbsp;(8:27)</p>
<p><strong>Babin: </strong>It doesn&rsquo;t make any sense whatsoever, unless you look at the agenda of this President and his administration. Everything they do, don&rsquo;t go by what they say, but what they do. Everything is geared toward having more Democrat voters. The release of criminal felons, who the Democrats want to enable to vote now, releasing of criminal aliens and all this effort by the administration to give them the vote as well&mdash;everything is pointing toward more Democrat voters, that&rsquo;s just the agenda that&rsquo;s behind this. The law is there, but the administration simply refuses to enforce the law to put the pressure on these people and that&rsquo;s why I think that so far we&rsquo;ve had great participation among my colleagues, Democrat and Republican, I might say. This bill is bipartisan and I&rsquo;m going to give you some statistics for your listeners, it&rsquo;s just incredible.</p>
<p>Since 2013, there have been 86,000 aliens who have committed 231,000 crimes released by this administration and 14,000 of them have been in my home state of Texas. And just last year, out of this, 208 American citizens were murdered. Among them was an illegal alien named John Shock, who was a native of Haiti. Haiti refused to accept him back after he had served a long term in prison for attempted murder. And within six months of his release from prison, back out on the street, shot and murdered a young lady, 28 years old from New London, Connecticut. (9:18)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Oh no, right near my house. Right near me. (11:09)</p>
<p><strong>Babin: </strong>Yeah, very similar to Kate Steinle, who was on the opposite side of the country in San Francisco. I&rsquo;m sure you&rsquo;re aware of this Kate Steinle&rsquo;s law that we would really like to see passed but evidently, it&rsquo;s not going to happen. &nbsp;(11:11)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>But, why is your law going to be passed? I mean Obama&rsquo;s not going to sign anything, so are you just doing this to get public opinion on your side? Or what? Because Obama&rsquo;s not going to sign this. (11:28)</p>
<p><strong>Babin: </strong>I was elected to do a job, I&rsquo;m not up here to have a new career. I&rsquo;ve got 13 grandchildren and I don&rsquo;t like the way this country is going, the direction of it. And, you know, and for the first time we see most Americans feeling like the younger generation are going to inherit a country that&rsquo;s not as good as the older generation&rsquo;s. And, so it is something that we have to do. I can&rsquo;t just sit back and see these kinds of things happening without offering bills and we&rsquo;ve already got close to 40 co-sponsors, democrats and republicans on this thing. And this is not a partisan law, this would not be a partisan bill whatsoever because the people who are being harmed here are American citizens, they&rsquo;re not Democrats or Republicans. This is totally non-partisan. (11:35)</p>
<p><strong>Babin: </strong>Let me tell you exactly what this bill is going to do, because you could have written this bill, Laura. What this is going to do is to cut off the foreign aid to these nations that do not cooperate. Many of these countries are getting millions and millions of our dollars. Then also, we will cut off their visa program immediately. And, if that doesn&rsquo;t happen, they do not get reinstated. (15:11)</p>
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/BABIN:-Criminal-Aliens-Granted-a-Revolving-Back-Door-onto-our-Streets/-521381899066255215.htmlStaff2016-06-01T17:08:00ZHANNA: Trump's Comments on Gorilla Shooting 'Encouraging'Staffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/HANNA:-Trumps-Comments-on-Gorilla-Shooting-Encouraging/-45829440183518107.html2016-05-31T17:00:00Z2016-05-31T17:00:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, celebrity zookeeper, Jack Hanna, discussed the tragic shooting of Hurambe, a Lowland Gorilla, last weekend in the Cincinnati Zoo. Unlike previous situations, Hanna explained, the child in Hurambe&rsquo;s enclosure was not unconscious. If the zoo had not made the decision to shoot the gorilla, he said, &ldquo; I don&rsquo;t even want to describe what could have happened.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Earlier today, GOP frontrunner addressed the shooting, saying, &ldquo;There were moments where he looked very calm, and moments when he looked very dangerous. I don&rsquo;t think they had a choice...It&rsquo;s too bad there wasn&rsquo;t another way.&rdquo; Hanna said he found Trump&rsquo;s comments &ldquo;encouraging,&rdquo; reiterating the tragedy was a &ldquo;no win&rdquo; situation.</p>
<br /><br />Partial Transcript<br />[<a href="/b/HANNA:-Trumps-Comments-on-Gorilla-Shooting-Encouraging/169353577585538114.html" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]<br /><br />***<br />
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>I predicted Trump would speak out on Hurambe the lowland gorilla being shot and killed at the Cincinnati Zoo over the weekend, it was a horrific situation. &nbsp;(0:40)</p>
<p><strong>Hanna: </strong>It was actually encouraging somewhat to hear what Donald Trump had to say, because I wasn&rsquo;t quite sure of the gentleman, I&rsquo;ve met him several times. However, he&rsquo;s hit it on the nail. This is a no win situation for anybody on this scene. Nobody. No one loves gorillas more than the Hanna family, more than the Cincinnati and Columbus Zoo, as well as the entire American Zoo Association, all of us. We all hurt today, not because, it&rsquo;s one of these things, and I&rsquo;ll quickly say it, that had to be done. It&rsquo;s a no win situation.&nbsp; There&rsquo;s no choice here. (1:12)</p>
<p><strong>Hanna: </strong>I do have a little home in Africa, two miles from where the mountain gorillas live, those are mountain gorillas, this was a lowland gorilla, same species of animal, just different areas of the world. I can tell you now, this animal, everyone is saying this animal, I think in Jersey it was, off the coast of England, they had one fall in there. That&rsquo;s true, it did. And, there was a silverback there, that's true as well. The problem is, Laura, that this was a child that was unconscious, number one. Another one, if you want to pull it up, you really would want to see this one, in Brookville Zoo 20 years ago, a child fell in that also was unconscious. And, that gorilla female picked that child up, went over, and set it in her lap. A keeper came in and got it. Now, why was that done that way? Because it was unconscious. Also, that gorilla was raised her at the Columbus Zoo by people, which we very rarely do today. And, guess what, that gorilla had no reason to do anything. &nbsp;(2:03)</p>
<p><strong>Hanna: </strong>I was asked this question today of people who are on Facebook and everything disagreeing, I&rsquo;m sure some of the stuff, some of the people, are saying no that shouldn&rsquo;t have happened, the gorilla was real nice. No, they don&rsquo;t know the gorillas like I have studied the mountain gorillas, the lowland gorillas. I can tell you now, all heck would have broke loose there when that dart, if you tranquilize it, everyone asks that question, it is very simple. I&rsquo;ve been with gorilla veterinarians when they&rsquo;ve had to tranquilize them because their heads are ripped off by snares and everything. I&rsquo;ve seen what happens. When they pop them, they jump big time. So, what&rsquo;s that gorilla really going to do with this thing holding? Laura, I don&rsquo;t even want to describe what could have happened. (3:25)</p>
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/HANNA:-Trumps-Comments-on-Gorilla-Shooting-Encouraging/-45829440183518107.htmlStaff2016-05-31T17:00:00ZAmb. Bolton: 'President of U.S. Should NOT Speak to Kim Jong-Un'Staffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Amb.-Bolton:-President-of-U.S.-Should-NOT-Speak-to-Kim-Jong-Un/762302816538121650.html2016-05-20T16:42:00Z2016-05-20T16:42:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, Amb. John Bolton addressed China's recent demands to end US interference in the South China Sea dispute. According to Bolton, China is &ldquo;more ready than we are at this point to get serious about it. They&rsquo;re way ahead of us in terms of putting bases there to take their territorial claim and make it a reality while Obama&rsquo;s just watched it happen.&rdquo; He explained, China&rsquo;s neighbors - Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia - are helpless in the face of China, which has facilitated their ability to claim the territory. He also discussed China&rsquo;s refusal to adhere to their commitments in regards to trade agreements. The Chinese have not adhered to regulations for over 15 years, whether stealing intellectual property, unfairly subsidizing Chinese businesses, or penalizing foreign business. Bolton explained, the United States has not done with we are entitled to do under the WTO to push back on these violations. Trump, he predicted, will not be a weak president on these issues, which &ldquo;is probably why the Chinese would prefer to have Hillary as president.&rdquo;</p>
<p>In addition to the recent China controversy, Amb. Bolton discussed the United States&rsquo; relationship with North Korea. &ldquo;You have to hand it to the North Koreans for running rings around the United States in the last two administrations, frankly the last three, including Bill Clinton&rsquo;s,&rdquo; he said. &ldquo;I do not think that an American president should speak to Kim Jong Un,&rdquo; Bolton advised, &ldquo;I think the American side gets nothing out of that. Kim Jong Un gets legitimacy and propaganda he can dine on for years.&rdquo;</p>
<br /><br />Partial Transcript<br />[<a href="/b/Amb.-Bolton:-President-of-U.S.-Should-NOT-Speak-to-Kim-Jong-Un/777873046562807129.html" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]<br /><br />***<br />
<p><strong>Bolton: </strong>I think Trump understands, as he does in many respects about China, that they pose a threat to the United States. They are not a benign rising power, they are, at best, a potential adversary. And, I think, in fact, in many circumstances an actual adversary as their behavior in the South China Sea demonstrates. Unfortunately, they&rsquo;re more ready than we are at this point to get serious about it. They&rsquo;re way ahead of us in terms of putting bases there to take their territorial claim and make it a reality while Obama&rsquo;s just watched it happen. And, people will say, who cares about the South China Sea? It&rsquo;s incredibly important for ocean borne traffic, half world's ocean borne traffic goes through the South China Sea, oil and gas from the Middle East to our allies, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. It&rsquo;s an extremely important area. And, they&rsquo;re getting what they want. The other countries in the region Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, are helpless in the face of China, and China knows it. &nbsp;(3:09)</p>
<p><strong>Bolton: </strong>You have to hand it to the North Koreans for running rings around the United States in the last two administrations, frankly the last three, including Bill Clinton&rsquo;s. They&rsquo;ve negotiated repeatedly with the United States a commitment to give up their nuclear weapons program and serially violated them before the ink was dry on any of them. I do not think that an American president should speak to Kim Jong Un. I think the American side gets nothing out of that. Kim Jong Un gets legitimacy and propaganda he can dine on for years. I think we do need to toughen our policy on the Korean nuclear program. I think the ultimate objective is reunifying the two Koreas and that is something China is in a unique position to help us out with. But, we haven&rsquo;t been trying that for 25 years. So, almost any policy change with respect to North Korea would be a plus because for 25 years we&rsquo;ve tried negotiation and they&rsquo;ve done four ballistic tests and their missiles are getting close to being able to reach the west coast of the United States. That is not progress from our perspective. (9:03)</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Amb.-Bolton:-President-of-U.S.-Should-NOT-Speak-to-Kim-Jong-Un/762302816538121650.htmlStaff2016-05-20T16:42:00ZRYAN'S CHALLENGER: Ryan has 'some nerve' not supporting TrumpStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/RYANS-CHALLENGER:-Ryan-has-some-nerve-not-supporting-Trump/161222725073204481.html2016-05-09T17:17:00Z2016-05-09T17:17:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, Rep. Paul Ryan&rsquo;s (R-WI) primary opponent, Paul Nehlen, discussed his campaign to unseat the Speaker of the House. Nehlen, who currently serves as Senior Vice President of Operations for Neptune Benson, explained, &ldquo;the reason I&rsquo;m running for Congress is, Paul Ryan is the mercenary champion of this Trans Pacific Partnership, this job killing, industry destroying trade deal.&rdquo; Nehlen explained, &ldquo;in business, you succeed by under promising and over-delivering...But, in politics, you can fail year after year and yet, the corruption of Washington D.C. gets protected by big donor money.&rdquo; He hopes, by unseating the current speaker, to end that cycle of corruption.</p>
<p>Regarding Ryan&rsquo;s reluctance to endorse Trump, Nehlen said, &ldquo;Paul Ryan has some nerve saying he cannot support the presumptive nominee, Donald Trump, who campaigned around this country.&rdquo; Nehlen, unlike Speaker Ryan, has promised to honor the decision of the voters and support Trump; further, Nehlen views Donald Trump as a necessary &ldquo;agent for change.&rdquo;</p>
<br /><br />Partial Transcript<br />[<a href="/b/Paul-Nehlen:-Ryans-Elitism-is-Showing,-His-Disdain--Disrespect-for-the-American-People-Is-Unbelievable/394296401576050101.html" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]<br /><br />***<br />
<p><strong>Nehlen: </strong>The reason I&rsquo;m running for Congress is, Paul Ryan is the mercenary champion of this Trans Pacific Partnership, this job killing, industry destroying trade deal. Nobody needs 5,500 pages of trade deal. You said at the beginning of the show what I do, and what I&rsquo;ve done my whole career. I build heavily engineered equipment that works. And, I successfully sell my product into China, I sell it all over the world, because it works. I put a 10 year warranty on my filtration equipment and our UV disinfection equipment is unmatched. We have great products, we have great workers, and people buy it. So, I went from being a maintenance mechanic in a factory, 18 years old, to running businesses. I ran businesses all over the U.S., I was in charge of Europe and the Middle East and Africa for a Fortune 500 company. Paul Ryan went from driving the wiener-mobile in Wisconsin to Congress. &nbsp;&nbsp;(3:43)</p>
<p><strong>Nehlen: </strong>I know how to do business, I&rsquo;ve done it a long time. I love it, I&rsquo;m passionate about it. But, this isn&rsquo;t about me. I&rsquo;m simply an agent of change at the state level. Paul Ryan&rsquo;s my congressman, he betrayed me, and his growing unpopularity really bridges political factions. He&rsquo;s betrayed us all. And, in business, you succeed by under promising and over-delivering. It&rsquo;s very simple. Under-promise, over-deliver. But, in politics, you can fail year after year and yet, the corruption of Washington D.C. gets protected by big donor money. That game is over. &nbsp;(3:03)</p>
<p><strong>Nehlen: </strong>When Paul Ryan says he&rsquo;s a conservative and passes omnibus, I mean, it&rsquo;s disingenuous to say that was John Boehner&rsquo;s. Where was Paul Ryan when that was being put together? Oh, he was in the Ways and Means Committee. He was putting the ingredients in that cake for us. And, then, Boehner&rsquo;s out. Ryan&rsquo;s in. Ryan&rsquo;s there to deliver that cake to us. &nbsp;(4:08)</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/RYANS-CHALLENGER:-Ryan-has-some-nerve-not-supporting-Trump/161222725073204481.htmlStaff2016-05-09T17:17:00ZBuchanan to Cruz: Support Trump or No FutureStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Buchanan-to-Cruz:-Support-Trump-or-No-Future/-740438232226069245.html2016-05-04T18:02:00Z2016-05-04T18:02:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br>On today&rsquo;s program, Pat Buchanan discussed the bitterness among &ldquo;Never-Trumpers&rdquo; following the suspension of Sen. Ted Cruz&rsquo;s (R-TX) presidential campaign. In 1992, convention, Buchanan urged his supporters to rally behind George H.W. Bush, the Republican nominee. At the time, Buchanan warned, &ldquo;this war is for the soul of America. And in that struggle for the soul of America, Clinton &amp; Clinton are on the other side, and George Bush is on our side. And so, to the Buchanan Brigades out there, we have to come home and stand beside George Bush.&rdquo; Today, Buchanan made a similar suggestion, advising those who have vowed &ldquo;#NeverTrump&rdquo; to come around and support Donald Trump in the &ldquo;overall interest of conservatism.&rdquo; &ldquo;Whatever your view of what [conservatism] is," Buchanan said, "it certainly is not Hillary Rodham Clinton as President of the United States.&rdquo;<br /><br />During his campaign, Sen. Cruz was reluctant to reveal whether or not he would support Donald Trump, if he became the Republican nominee. Buchanan advised, &ldquo;if you want a future in the Republican Party, I think you have to endorse its nominee and you have to vote for its nominee.&rdquo;<br /><br />Partial Transcript<br />[<a href="/b/Buchanan-to-Cruz:-Support-Trump-or-No-Future/137935283628957156.html" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]<br /><br />***<br />
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham:</strong> The bitterness out there among the Never-Trumpers lingers. Will they and should they come around? (2:32)<br /><br /><strong>Buchanan:</strong> I believe they should. Many of them feel it very deeply, some feel they just can&rsquo;t do it. But, if you look at the overall interest of conservatism, whatever<br />&nbsp;your view of what it is, it certainly is not Hillary Rodham Clinton as president of the United States and filling upcoming vacancies on the Supreme Court. And, she&rsquo;s the antithesis of what conservatism is. But, some of these folks, I go back to the Goldwater<br />&nbsp;years, and I was very much for Barry Goldwater, and I can remember in 1964 that Rockefeller, and Gov. Romney of Michigan, and Gov. Scranton, and all walked away, wouldn&rsquo;t endorse him, wouldn&rsquo;t wear a Goldwater button. And, Richard Nixon got in his F-27 with Shelley Scarney, my future wife, and Rosewood&rsquo;s and one or two others, and went around about 100,000 miles in a little F-27 trying to fight for everyone in the Party, including Goldwater. And, Goldwater after that loss, came around and endorsed him. In other words, if you want a future in the Republican Party, I think you have to endorse its nominee and you have to vote for its nominee. Otherwise, it becomes very difficult to ask the followers of that nominee to support you in future years. So, I think self-interest,<br />&nbsp;as well as interest of the Party and the interest of the country, I think that takes getting behind Donald Trump. (2:40)</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Buchanan-to-Cruz:-Support-Trump-or-No-Future/-740438232226069245.htmlStaff2016-05-04T18:02:00ZCORKER: TRUMP IS RIGHT ON RUSSIAStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/CORKER:-TRUMP-IS-RIGHT-ON-RUSSIA/-403926928062290375.html2016-04-29T16:31:00Z2016-04-29T16:31:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), responded to Trump&rsquo;s foreign relationships <a href="https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-foreign-policy-speech">speech</a>, specifically his comments on improving relations with Russia:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 60px;"><em>We desire to live peacefully and in friendship with Russia and China. We have serious differences with these two nations, and must regard them with open eyes. But we are not bound to be adversaries. We should seek common ground based on shared interests. Russia, for instance, has also seen the horror of Islamic terrorism.</em></p>
<p style="padding-left: 60px;"><em>I believe an easing of tensions and improved relations with Russia &ndash; from a position of strength &ndash; is possible. Common sense says this cycle of hostility must end. Some say the Russians won&rsquo;t be reasonable. I intend to find out. If we can&rsquo;t make a good deal for America, then we will quickly walk from the table.</em></p>
<p>Though the &ldquo;foreign relations Establishment&rdquo; is horrified by Trump&rsquo;s assertions; however, Corker conceded, &ldquo;what Trump is saying that we need to negotiate with them from a position of strength is absolutely true.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript <a href="/b/Sen.-Corker:-On-Putin-Trumps-Right/881001379859727946.html">[LISTEN]</a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Corker: </strong>I like the fact that he&rsquo;s challenging the status quo. I really do. I think we&rsquo;ve made some mistakes. There needs to be a maturity to what we're doing, some realism to what we're doing. There&rsquo;s too much of this thinking that if we send in our military that we&rsquo;re going to turn a country into democracy, and I like the fact that he&rsquo;s challenging much of what has happened. (4:10)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Corker:</strong> I actually think because of what has happened over the course of the last 15 years or so, we&rsquo;re beginning to move to a place that is a realistic place for our nation to be. I think that what candidate Trump said the other day embodied that in many ways. Again, I&rsquo;m not planning on endorsing anyone, I have important responsibilities as Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">He gave a very good speech. I love the Bushes too, I really do. I feel close to all of them. I realize that even the Bushes themselves have different views about foreign policies. They do. I know it, you know it. And, each individual person has to grasp what they feel our nation should be doing. I thought Trump&rsquo;s speech was a good speech. I was glad to listen to it. I thought it was a great transition at a very important moment during this presidential campaign. I felt like I should say that, and I&rsquo;m glad I did. I&rsquo;ll say it again. It was a good speech, a good transition, and I look forward to hearing more. (5:30)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>The comment he made about Russia, specifically he said, if we can get closer and have a better relationship, we have the bite . . . Folks who were, again, in the foreign policy Establishment in Washington were horrified by that. Namely, Russia&rsquo;s gone into Crimea, Russia&rsquo;s obviously trying to extend it&rsquo;s influence into Europe with deals with the gas pipeline, and Nord Stream Pipeline, and so forth. They&rsquo;re calling him the pro-Putin presidency. What about that? (6:58)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Corker: </strong>One of the reasons Putin went into Crimea and Eastern Ukraine was he saw President Obama wouldn&rsquo;t take action, meaning when the red line was crossed in August of 2013, we didn&rsquo;t take action. We jumped in Putin&rsquo;s lap. Putin saw that as a weakness in our country and realized if he did what he did in Crimea he would not pay a price. I&rsquo;ve talked to world leaders on my many travels who have had that conversation with him where he says, look, there&rsquo;s no push back to what I'm doing in foreign policy, it helps me at home, creates this great nationalistic fervor, there&rsquo;s no price to pay, I&rsquo;m going to continue. We see now in Syria again where he basically, whatever happens in Syria&rsquo;s future is going to be determined by Putin not by the United States, because he stepped into a vacuum in the last six months. So, what Trump is saying that we need to negotiate with them from a position of strength is absolutely true. That&rsquo;s how we were successful with them for decades, and the culmination in the end of the 80s early 90s was the wall coming down. As it relates to us having common interests relative to terrorism, that&rsquo;s true. There&rsquo;s no question we have a common interest getting to a place where we&rsquo;re able, through common interest, to deal with that properly, obviously it&rsquo;s a heavy lift. But, the fact is dealing with them through strength is where we need to be. There is little respect, we see that, we see that in these negotiations, we see that by virtue of two episodes in Syria and what you just mentioned in Crimea. You&rsquo;ve got a guy who had no cards; Putin had no cards, a declining economy, declining demographics. Yet, he was able to get back on the world stage because our nation was weak and he knew that. (7:58)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/CORKER:-TRUMP-IS-RIGHT-ON-RUSSIA/-403926928062290375.htmlStaff2016-04-29T16:31:00ZCRUZ: I SUPPORTED BUILDING A WALL BEFORE DONALD EVEN ENTERED THE RACEStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/CRUZ:-I-SUPPORTED-BUILDING-A-WALL-BEFORE-DONALD-EVEN-ENTERED-THE-RACE/997560961555678709.html2016-04-25T15:52:00Z2016-04-25T15:52:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p><em>CRUZ: ESTABLISHMENT SUPPORT HAS NOT CHANGED MY POSITIONS</em></p>
<p>On today&rsquo;s program, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) reacted to Donald Trump&rsquo;s claim that his support for building a wall along the U.S./Mexico border &ldquo;came out of nowhere.&rdquo; Cruz reminded listeners, &ldquo;I was saying that long before Donald Trump entered the race.&rdquo; In 2012, during his run for Senate, Cruz <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEgJh-1i1Cw">discussed</a> his support for building a wall along the Texas/Mexico border:</p>
<p>We have an illegal immigration crisis and we need to do everything humanly possible to secure the border. That means fences, that means walls.</p>
<p>In fact, as far back as <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0h3Mu8BbjM">2011</a>, Ted Cruz supported using "any and all possible efforts" to secure the border, including building fences and walls. At this time, Cruz noted, Trump was &ldquo;coming out publicly for amnesty.&rdquo; The senator also expressed skepticism Trump would follow through on his promise to build a wall, if elected, pointing to the unreleased <em>New York Times</em> tape where Trump supposedly said he does not support his present stance on immigration.</p>
<p>Cruz also addressed the possibility of including language in the Party platform opposing the Trans Pacific Partnership, and his opposition to any lame duck consideration of the trade deal. Last week on the program, Trump promised to insist the platform include that the TPP will not be approved. Cruz, however, admitted while he would &ldquo;be happy to have the platform reflect [his] position,&rdquo; he is &ldquo;not devoting a lot of time and energy to worrying about the platform.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript <a href="/b/CRUZ:-I-Supported-the-Wall-Before-Trump;-Establishment-support-has-not-changed-my-position/-37962911697543029.html">[LISTEN]</a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>With the Republican platform going into this convention, will you backup your opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership? Would you back your comments and opposition to the TPP up by agreeing to put language in the platform, which says no to the Trans Pacific Partnership and no to any lame duck consideration of it given what you, and Donald Trump, have said about it in this campaign, would you agree to that? (6:32)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Cruz: </strong>That is very much my position, so of course I&rsquo;d be happy to have the platform reflect my position. That being said, I&rsquo;m not devoting a lot of time and energy to worrying about the platform. Where I&rsquo;m focusing my time and energy is winning elections, it&rsquo;s unifying Republicans. (7:10)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>On the issue of the wall, we played that soundbite many times where you said you would build the wall. Is it your position that Trump won&rsquo;t build the wall but you will? (14:06<strong>)</strong></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Cruz: </strong>Absolutely, yes. And I was saying that long before Donald Trump entered the race. I&rsquo;ve been fighting these fights long before . . . During the Gang of 8 fight, Trump was coming out publicly for amnesty. In January he told the New York Times in a tape recorded conversation he wasn't going to build the wall, he wasn&rsquo;t going to deport people, he didn&rsquo;t believe what he was saying on immigration. That has been reported but the tape isn&rsquo;t public. And, the reason is Donald won&rsquo;t let it be public. I would think you and all your listeners who genuinely care about these issues, should demand Trump release the tape. If he&rsquo;s innocent, if he didn&rsquo;t say he wasn't going to build a wall, the tape would exonerate him. (14:26)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Jeb and Rubio, or any of these other Establishment people, have they asked you to back off any of your positions? I&rsquo;m getting emails and tweets from people saying, what are they asking for for their support, if anything? Was there any, i&rsquo;m not saying quid pro quo, but they say, hey, give us a break on TPP. If you get elected, we got to do something with TPP, we have to do something with immigrants, you gotta help us out here, or nothing. (13:03)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Cruz: </strong>Not remotely. My position has not changed one iota, because my position is based on principle, and on honoring the promises to the men and women who elected me. When I ran for Senate I promise to lead the fight against Obamacare, In the Senate, I led the fight against Obamacare and as president I will repeal every word of Obamacare. When I ran for Senate I promised to lead the fight against amnesty, in the Senate I led the fight against amnesty, and as president I will stop amnesty and secure the borders. Principles should be internal and consistent. (13:34)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/CRUZ:-I-SUPPORTED-BUILDING-A-WALL-BEFORE-DONALD-EVEN-ENTERED-THE-RACE/997560961555678709.htmlStaff2016-04-25T15:52:00ZICYMI - TRUMP: 'NOT A BAD IDEA' TO APPROACH CRUZ'S CAMPAIGN OVER PARTY PLATFORMStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/ICYMI---TRUMP:-NOT-A-BAD-IDEA-TO-APPROACH-CRUZS-CAMPAIGN-OVER-PARTY-PLATFORM/239747764617318464.html2016-04-25T15:28:00Z2016-04-25T15:28:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Last week, Republican frontrunner Donald Trump discussed the possibility of reaching out to the Cruz campaign to insist the Trans-Pacific Partnership and border security are preeminent in the GOP platform. Despite the ongoing Trump-Cruz feud, Trump conceded reaching out is, &ldquo;not a bad idea.&rdquo; However, the billionaire noted Cruz&rsquo;s previous support for the TPP, stressing the importance of monetary manipulation clauses, which the Texas senator opposes. In contrast, Trump, who has been fighting the TPP from the beginning, promised to insist that in the Party platform the TPP will not be approved moving forward.</p>
<p>Amid speculation that the Republican Establishment is warming to him, Trump confessed,</p>
<p>&ldquo;I&rsquo;m getting phone calls right now...if you heard who these people are, people on television that you would say, no way they would ever support, they are committed morally and religiously from never ever even talking to Trump, and I&rsquo;m hanging up with people that want to get on the Trump deal.&rdquo;</p>
<p>These individuals who previously said &ldquo;things that were so onerous, so horrible,&rdquo; Trump revealed, are now willing to drastically shift their positions and support the front runner. According to Trump, he asked one of these individuals, &ldquo;How do you go from that position to I support Donald Trump?&rdquo; Though this is a large jump, &ldquo;because they&rsquo;re politicians,&rdquo; Trump explained, &ldquo;they have no problem.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript <a href="/b/Trump:-Confirms-Speculation-The-Establishment-Is-Warming-To-His-Candidacy/-174865868917460481.html">[LISTEN]</a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>One thing that I was thinking about last night, when I was up at a ridiculously early hour in the morning, is the platform. And, usually going into the Republican convention if there is a presumptive winner . . . he or she has a lot of influence over what's in that platform.&nbsp; As does the various committees, but the candidate has a lot of influence.&nbsp; Given the fact that Ted Cruz agrees with you that there should be a wall built on our southern border, and agrees . . .(5:34)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Trump</strong>: Recently, recently.&nbsp; Recent all the sudden he's talking about a wall.&nbsp; That came out of nowhere. &nbsp;(6:07)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham</strong>: But, he now agrees with you so that's progress.&nbsp; And, he agrees that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a bad deal.&nbsp; Since you both agree on those two really important things, would you consider, your campaign, approaching his campaign to say let&rsquo;s insist, regardless of what else happens, that those two things are preeminent in the GOP platform? (6:08)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Trump:</strong> &nbsp;Not a bad idea. I will say he was also in favor of the TPP.&nbsp; And, he came out and he was very much in favor.&nbsp; The problem with him is that he does not want to have manipulation, monetary manipulation.&nbsp; He's part of it, he fought it. He fought China, I mean if you think about it, he fought from having . . . China's not actually in it, but China will, someday, come into it you watch, through the backdoor, later on a couple years from now.&nbsp; But, he doesn't want to put monetary manipulation clauses in the TPP.&nbsp; He fought it.&nbsp; And I can't understand why other than there's obviously a group of people that, you know, gives him a lot of campaign contributions that doesn't want it because that's the only reason he doesn't want it because that totally destroys it. &nbsp;(6:30)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&nbsp;<strong>Ingraham:</strong> Will you insist that in the platform the TPP not be approved moving forward? &nbsp;(7:18)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Trump:</strong> Oh yeah, sure I would.&nbsp; I've been fighting it from the beginning, as soon as I heard it.&nbsp; You know it's 5,000 pages and everyone of the country's have read each word of each page.&nbsp; We've probably haven't even looked at it.&nbsp; It's like Obamacare, you know it was thousands and thousands of pages.&nbsp; Nobody read it, and it's a total disaster by the way. &nbsp;(7:22)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Trump:</strong> They&rsquo;re starting to give up. We may end up with 1,400 by the way. There&rsquo;s a route to 1,400. We&rsquo;re doing very well, were leading all five states, which is going to take place on Tuesday. I think my smallest lead is 20 points. It&rsquo;s been . . .</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>What&rsquo;s your message to the donors and members of Congress who were for Jeb and Rubio? There are a lot of them . . . (8:49)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Trump:</strong> I haven&rsquo;t said this very often. I&rsquo;m getting phone calls right now, even today I just got one, I just hung up with one that, if you heard who these people are, people on television that you would say, no way they would ever support, they are committed morally and religiously from never ever even talking to Trump, and I&rsquo;m hanging up with people that want to get on the Trump deal. And, I even said to one of them two days ago, I&rsquo;d love to have you, I think it&rsquo;s a great honor, but how do you possibly do it? He said such bad things, I said how do you do it? He said, that&rsquo;s no problem. You know why? Because, they&rsquo;re politicians. They have no problem. He said things that were so onerous, so horrible. I actually asked him, it would be great to have you, but how do it? How do you go from that position to I support Donald Trump? He said, absolutely, no problem.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/ICYMI---TRUMP:-NOT-A-BAD-IDEA-TO-APPROACH-CRUZS-CAMPAIGN-OVER-PARTY-PLATFORM/239747764617318464.htmlStaff2016-04-25T15:28:00ZPRIEBUS: 'I don't want candidates to think they got screwed'Staffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/PRIEBUS:-I-dont-want-candidates-to-think-they-got-screwed/129145202868819343.html2016-04-15T16:50:00Z2016-04-15T16:50:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, Republican Party Chairman Reince Priebus sought to clarify confusion surrounding the GOP nominating process, particularly the appointment of committee chairmen. While mainstream media is focusing almost entirely on the Rules Committee, Ingraham pressed the Chairman on the other committees: Credentials and Platform. He confirmed,</p>
<p>&ldquo;I pick the Chairman of these committees that you're asking about. Chairman of the Rules, Chairman of Credentials, Platform, that&rsquo;s my pick...None of the chairman of any of these committees have been named yet.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Ingraham also questioned Priebus on the &ldquo;wiggle room&rdquo; available to the Credentials Committee to deny slates of delegates, due to the complex language of the credential process. According to Priebus, Curly Haugland, a member of the Rules Committee who has perpetuated this argument, &ldquo;hasn&rsquo;t been able to prevail on this argument for as long as I&rsquo;ve been on the committee...I don&rsquo;t see those sorts of wild things happening.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Regarding the 2016 platform, Priebus revealed he would like to see large portions of the 2012 platform renewed, claiming, &ldquo;My intention is not to make massive changes to these things.&rdquo; Instead, he said he is prioritizing the unification of the Party, claiming the only way for that to happen is for candidates to focus explicitly on votes: &ldquo;I don&rsquo;t want the candidates worried that they got screwed because someone put in some sentence somewhere in the rules at the last second, and that&rsquo;s the reason they won or lost.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript <a href="/b/Reince-Priebus:-I-pick-the-Chairman-of-all-three-Committees,-I-havent-picked-these-people-yet/-756264127940818409.html">[LISTEN]</a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham:</strong> Let&rsquo;s start with the credentials committee, which is a committee that hasn't gotten a lot of press in recent days. And, why it&rsquo;s so important.(7:42)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Priebus: </strong>Let me just back up a little bit. A long time ago, 150 years ago, it used to be that we would have a convention, and so everyone understands, a convention has a meaning, it has a legal meaning. Organizations come together at convention to convene all of the folks that are part of the organization or they have special credentials, or whatever the voting system is. They come together, they write rules for the organization, they elect officers for the organization, and that&rsquo;s a voting convention. That&rsquo;s what we&rsquo;re having right now. A long time ago, people would run to be delegates for a particular state, they would show up in a particular state, like Iceland, and vote for whoever they wanted to. They voted and suddenly the Party picked a nominee. But, somewhere along the line, the party said, wouldn&rsquo;t it be a good idea, instead of sending these delegates to do whatever they want, why don&rsquo;t we expand the participation of this process, and allow these states to either have a caucus or a primary or a convention, and choose their delegates that way. But, we&rsquo;re going to bind the delegates to voting how that state voted in their primary or caucus. But, after those binding rules are over, the delegates can go vote for who they want, like they did in the old days.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">A particular state vote and, then those delegates get in a room. Let&rsquo;s say there&rsquo;s 95 delegates in Florida. Those 95 delegates do a couple things, they vote for who they want their delegation chairman to be. That delegation chairman is going to have some authority on the floor, that&rsquo;s a big election. lLl these campaigns are talking to these 95 people to say who they think should be the chairman. Someone's going to win that. Then they're going to have an election for the credentials committee, which you asked about. And, they&rsquo;re going to elect one man and one woman to the credentials committee. (8:13)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham:</strong> Each state? (10:30)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Priebus</strong>: Each state. One man, one woman to the platform committee. One man, one woman to the rules committee. And, one man, one woman to the permanent organization committee. So, this is a very democratic process, but it&rsquo;s not something, as you mentioned in the interview before which was right,it&rsquo;s something most people never cared about. We&rsquo;ve gone through election after election and someone gets in the lead, someone gets the delegates, they&rsquo;re bound in the first vote, and no one ever considers what the rules say or don&rsquo;t say. In regards to Colorado, it&rsquo;s the same convention system they&rsquo;ve used, and Wyoming uses it, and it&rsquo;s not common. What they do is, a month ago, on March 1 they have precincts, and over 60,000 people showed up and voted for who they thought the right delegates should be. The delegates are either unbound, or for Cruz, or they're for Trump.&nbsp; And, they go to a county caucus after that, then they go to a congressional district election. &nbsp;(10:39)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Priebus: </strong>Trump has received some great benefits from the system as well.I mean, you talk about Florida, he got 50 some percent of the vote and 100% of the delegates bound to him on a couple ballots. Florida by the way is bound for two or three ballots. (12:11)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Curly Haugland has made a point repeatedly that this whole first ballot, second ballot analysis is kind of flawed. He said, the rules can be changed at the convention. So, for the way delegates are slated and how credentials are considered, the actual credentialing process, this is the wonky kind of stuff that Cruz, believe me, Ted Cruz knows all of this. He has studied this, he knows it. The credentials stuff can be very complicated. When I&rsquo;m reading the language of the past credentials committees, because I&rsquo;m a geek too, I can see why there&rsquo;s a little wiggle room there for denying certain slates of delegates. If the signatures were not in the right place, there were a lot of things that have to be done to get your people properly credentialed. Correct? Am I stating that correctly? (12:46)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Priebus: </strong>Well, there&rsquo;s certainly a lot of things that can happen, however, you have to keep in mind that the Cruz and Trump delegates are going to have about 80% of the outstanding delegates in their name. So, why would the Cruz and Trump delegates, if they were going to make any changes to the rules, they&rsquo;re not going to make them looser. If they were going to make changes, they would probably buckle them down. A lot of this 24-7 cable stuff, and I like Curly, he&rsquo;s a good guy, but he hasn&rsquo;t been able to prevail on this argument for as long as I&rsquo;ve been on the committee, and I&rsquo;ve been Chairman for six, General Counsel for two. I don&rsquo;t see those sorts of wild things happening.(13:35)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Who&rsquo;s the Chairman of the Credential Committee? (14:19)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Priebus: </strong>It hasn&rsquo;t been named. (14:20)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>When will it be named? (14:23)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Priebus: </strong>None of the chairman of any of these committees have been named yet. (14:25)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>They will be named when? (14:27)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Priebus: </strong>If I had to guess, I&rsquo;d say within a month. (14:31)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>How does the Chairman get picked, do you pick the chairman? Does Paul Ryan have any play? (15:15)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Priebus: </strong>I pick the Chairman of these committees that you're asking about. Chairman of the Rules, Chairman of Credentials, Platform, that&rsquo;s my pick. (15:23)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>That&rsquo;s important. (15:34)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Priebus: </strong>It is important. (15:31)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Who&rsquo;s the Chairman of the Platform committee, since we don&rsquo;t have a presumptive nominee? Who&rsquo;s writing the platform? (15:34)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Priebus: </strong>I haven&rsquo;t picked that person yet, and that&rsquo;s going to come very soon, I promise. (15:42)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>What goes into your thinking on who should be the chairman of the platform writing committee? (15:49)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Priebus: </strong>My view is, I love the 2012 platform, that&rsquo;s the one we worked on in 2012. I think as much of it that we can renew, we should. My intention is not to make massive changes to these things. I believe in the principles of our party, and that&rsquo;s my mentality on the platform moving forward, and it&rsquo;s even my mentality on the rules too. I&rsquo;m not calling for big changes on any of these things. I want to move forward. My main thing is I&rsquo;ve got to get this Party to be unified, and the only way I think that&rsquo;s going to happen is if candidates focus in on votes. Do they have the votes or don't&rsquo; they? I don&rsquo;t want the candidates worried that they got screwed because someone put in some sentence somewhere in the rules at the last second, and that&rsquo;s the reason they won or lost. It&rsquo;s got to be all about the votes, I&rsquo;ve got to take away that problem. (15:56)</p>
<p><br /> <br /></p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/PRIEBUS:-I-dont-want-candidates-to-think-they-got-screwed/129145202868819343.htmlStaff2016-04-15T16:50:00ZFormer CO GOP Chair: "Your vote doesn't matter, your voice doesn't count."Staffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Former-CO-GOP-Chair:-Your-vote-doesnt-matter,-your-voice-doesnt-count./769028129528259196.html2016-04-11T16:59:00Z2016-04-11T16:59:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, former Colorado GOP Chairman Ryan Call, addressed the controversy surrounding Colorado&rsquo;s decision to eliminate the presidential preference poll from their caucus. He explained, the removal of the preference poll &ldquo;cut out any semblance of democracy or the popular will in connection with the delegate election event.&rdquo; Instead, the only votes that mattered in Colorado were those who underwent the &ldquo;cumbersome, convoluted, complicated, and not friendly&rdquo; process of becoming a delegate, while the million Republican voters were silenced.</p>
<p>Call also admitted he is &ldquo;overwhelmingly&rdquo; concerned with the reputation of the Republican Party, noting,</p>
<p>&ldquo;The very time we should be opening up our doors and being more open and transparent, and welcoming people into our Party, we&rsquo;ve essentially made the decision to close it off and make it more cumbersome and more difficult.&rdquo;</p>
<p>This decision, he concluded, tells voters, &ldquo;your vote doesn&rsquo;t matter and your voice doesn&rsquo;t count.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript <a href="/b/Ryan-Call:-The-process-to-become-a-CO-delegate-is-cumbersome,-complicated--not-friendly-to-people-that-are-new-to-the-process/869078397540091697.html">[LISTEN]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">***</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>The August 25th announcement that they would no longer do the presidential preference poll at their caucus, my spidey-senses went up when that happened. Was I correct to, at the time, note that this was a sign that they were not going to be bound by the people of Colorado selecting Trump. If that was a risk, they wanted to cut that off at the pass in August. Am I correct in stating that? (4:05)</p>
<p><strong>Call: </strong>That&rsquo;s exactly right. While the caucus votes we&rsquo;ve held in previous elections in 2008 and 2012 were always straw polls, they didn&rsquo;t bind or allocate the delegations. They at least were a snapshot into where voter sentiment is in the state of Colorado, and the decision by the state Republican Party to cancel that vote taken in connection with the caucus really did cut out any semblance of democracy or the popular will in connection with the delegate election event. It became an entire party insiders game with getting delegates to go to county assemblies in the state convention. While Colorado has over a million registered Republican voters, the only votes that really counted were that of the 3,900 delegates that gathered down in Colorado Springs. (4:39)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>How do you become a delegate in Colorado? Does it tend to be more people who are activists within the Party? Is there a Tea Party element? How does that play out? (5:45)</p>
<p><strong>Call: </strong>So, Colorado has a lot of different elements. Tea Party elements, strong second amendment and pro-life supporters, it&rsquo;s a very diverse coalition. And, lots of factions are involved in the Party. But, the process to become a delegate, to be able to have your voice heard in the process, is admittedly cumbersome, convoluted, complicated, and not friendly to folks that are political novices or are new at this process. You would have had to show up at your local neighborhood caucuses back in March, March 1st, and sit through two or three hour meetings, get elected from among your neighbors at the local neighborhood precinct caucus to go attend a county assembly. Then, from the county assembly, you had to convince the few hundred or a thousand of delegates at the county assembly to move you on to attend the congressional district, or state convention process. Then, you had to show up at the state convention and, as has been widely reported, you had ten seconds to make your pitch to the 3,900 delegates at the state assembly of why they should elect you to go to Cleveland. (5:59)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>At a time where the Republicans are so fractured, and it really is for the most part an anti-Establishment &nbsp;mood within the Party, that&rsquo;s why Rubio went down in flames, that&rsquo;s why Jeb couldn&rsquo;t get any traction, that&rsquo;s why Kasich is still lower in delegate count than Rubio. These outsiders as they&rsquo;re called are still managing to capture the imagination and the spirit of the people, but if at the end of all this people just have an overall sense that, if you&rsquo;re a Republican voter and you vote it doesn&rsquo;t matter that much, how much damage do you think that will do to the Republican brand or reputation going forward? (8:15)</p>
<p><strong>Call: </strong>That is a great observation, and it&rsquo;s a concern I feel overwhelmingly as well. The very time we should be opening up our doors and being more open and transparent, and welcoming people into our Party, we&rsquo;ve essentially made the decision to close it off and make it more cumbersome and more difficult. And, to prevent the ability of people to have their voice heard in this process. You&rsquo;re reinforcing all of the very worst stereotypes about the Party and I, frankly, am very concerned about the way voters are going to feel. In a swing state like Colorado, for example, even if Ted Cruz or Donald Trump ultimately become the nominee for President, while we&rsquo;ve been able to make our pitch to the 3,900 delegates at the state convention, there's million registered Republicans that haven&rsquo;t been talked to and there&rsquo;s almost a million and a half unaffiliated voters, independent voters, that are key to deciding the contest in the battleground state and we haven&rsquo;t done any work in a state like Colorado to build the campaign infrastructure to engage them or allow their voices to be heard. So, the message we&rsquo;re sending to voters broadly the way this process is going is that your vote doesn&rsquo;t matter and your voice doesn&rsquo;t count.</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Former-CO-GOP-Chair:-Your-vote-doesnt-matter,-your-voice-doesnt-count./769028129528259196.htmlStaff2016-04-11T16:59:00ZBuchanan: Trump/Cruz Ticket Would End the EstablishmentStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Buchanan:-Trump/Cruz-Ticket-Would-End-the-Establishment/-89738065600674061.html2016-04-06T16:40:00Z2016-04-06T16:40:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, Pat Buchanan stressed the potential of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz uniting, claiming such a ticket, &ldquo;would be the end of the Establishment right there.&rdquo; &nbsp;Buchanan suggested, &ldquo;it is up to the two insurgencies, if you will, Trump and Cruz to get together and at least guarantee that one or the other gets this nomination.&rdquo; Between the two &ldquo;insurgencies,&rdquo; he explained, &ldquo; they have enough delegates, pledged delegates and probably loyal delegates to do that.&rdquo;&nbsp;</p>
<p>Buchanan also addressed the deep hatred the Establishment holds for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), despite their current support for the senator. The Establishment would prefer &ldquo;someone like Paul Ryan or someone who can continue with policies and issues as they&rsquo;re going right now.&rdquo; Cruz, Buchanan continued, is being used by the Establishment in order to stop Trump; however, Cruz, Buchanan warned ought to have a strategy, as, with the Donald out of the picture, &ldquo;the Establishment will get rid of [Cruz] as fast as it can&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript <a href="/b/Pat-Buchanan:-Who-these-delegates-are-is-just-as-important-as-how-many-delegates-there-are/-828330721036770370.html">[LISTEN]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">***</p>
<p><strong>Buchanan: </strong>The key thing for Trump to do is to go as hard as he can with as many delegates as he can, and then move on these unbound delegates. Frankly, he has to move and offer the vice presidency to someone who can put him over the top. I do agree with those who say, if Trump doesn&rsquo;t make it on the first ballot, there&rsquo;s tremendous attrition in his forces. That is where Cruz comes in. And, I think that Cruz and Trump have a vested interest in making sure that one of the two of them gets this nomination, and they ought to rewrite rule 40B to make it airtight. &nbsp;(6:17)</p>
<p><strong>Buchanan: </strong>The Establishment in Washington is despised. People want no part of it. They would like to get rid of these people but the Establishment is working away for its own survival. I think it is up to the two insurgencies, if you will, Trump and Cruz to get together and at least guarantee that one or the other gets this nomination. And, they have enough delegates, pledged delegates and probably loyal delegates, to do that. &nbsp;(11:18)</p>
<p><strong>Buchanan: </strong>Frankly, if I were, and I know this sounds righteous, but the Trump/Cruz ticket? That would be the end of the Establishment right there. (13:32)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>&nbsp;How dedicated are they to killing off the Establishment, if they aren&rsquo;t going to do that? (13:44)</p>
<p><strong>Buchanan: </strong>This is the point, the reason they aren&rsquo;t going to do that now, is Cruz thinks he can get it. I do think, the key here, is really Cruz. If Trump gets to 1,237, he&rsquo;s in. And, for VP he should deal with the unbound delegates, he should do what he has to do to get that. But, if he calls short and breaks loose, Cruz better have a strategy so that the Establishment doesn&rsquo;t come in and, having used him, basically pushed him&hellip; Does Cruz really believe Lindsey Graham loves him? All these people are, you know, Cruz is the blunt instrument they are using to stop Trump and then they will discard it. I think Cruz knows that, he&rsquo;s not an unintelligent man. (14:49)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>If you&rsquo;re Cruz, and you&rsquo;re thinking, how do I cement my standing with these people that I need? He needs the Establishment to support him, to win, without a doubt. What does he do? What does he give them? (15:05)</p>
<p><strong>Buchanan: </strong>What the Establishment wants is him to basically stop Trump, and that&rsquo;s in Cruz&rsquo;s interest. But, having done that, Cruz ought to know the Establishment will get rid of him as fast as it can, if it can get someone like Paul Ryan or someone who can continue with policies and issues as they&rsquo;re going right now - the interventions, the open borders, the amnesty, and all the rest of it, because that&rsquo;s where the Establishment is at. I&rsquo;m sure [Cruz] is aware that all these people who endorsed him don&rsquo;t love him. (15:21)</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Buchanan:-Trump/Cruz-Ticket-Would-End-the-Establishment/-89738065600674061.htmlStaff2016-04-06T16:40:00ZCosta: Establishment Planning Ahead for Second Ballot in ClevelandStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Costa:-Establishment-Planning-Ahead-for-Second-Ballot-in-Cleveland/-939795003702830719.html2016-04-05T16:50:00Z2016-04-05T16:50:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, Bob Costa, the national political reporter for the Washington Post, revealed Republican officials in many states across the country are pre-emptively planning ahead for a second ballot in the Cleveland convention. He explained, &ldquo;some of the delegates that are being put in the slots for Trump, people who are formally Trump delegates, but picked by the state chairman to fill out the roster of delegates to each state, they&rsquo;re actually Establishment Republicans.&rdquo; This could have enormous consequences for conservatives if there is a second ballot, as these delegates will then be able to go for a different, more Establishment-leaning, candidate.</p>
<p>Costa also addressed the latest NBC poll, showing Trump sliding a mere three points after what the media has deemed Trump&rsquo;s &ldquo;worst week ever.&rdquo; More significantly, he pointed out, momentum &ldquo;hasn&rsquo;t moved towards Cruz in a significant way, in terms of not only delegates, and endorsements, and money.&rdquo; The lack of momentum should concern the Cruz camp as it indicates, according to Costa, &ldquo;Cruz is well liked by many in the Establishment right now because he&rsquo;s anti-Trump, and able to beat Trump, perhaps, in some states. But, not because he&rsquo;s beloved.&rdquo; Therefore, he predicted, &ldquo;If Trump is not part of the equation, Cruz loses his value.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript <a href="/b/Bob-Costa:-If-Trump-dropped-out-of-the-race-a-new-candidate-would-be-put-in-to-avoid-a-Cruz-presidency/-911799914076051556.html">[LISTEN]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">***</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Costa:</strong> Think about it this way. Let&rsquo;s say you live in X state and Donald Trump wins that state. If Trump goes to state convention, he&rsquo;s going to come out with delegates. But, some of the delegates that are being put in the slots for Trump, people who are formally Trump delegates, but picked by the state chairman to fill out the roster of delegates to each state, they&rsquo;re actually Establishment Republicans. And, the reason for this is many Republican officials across the country in these states are planning ahead for a second ballot in the Cleveland convention. They know that a lot of these Trump delegate slots have to be for Trump on the first ballot, but they think because Trump&rsquo;s not organized well across these state conventions, if they put their own people in as Trump delegates, once it comes to Cleveland and there&rsquo;s a second ballot, they can maybe go for a different candidate. (7:36)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>How is this perceived by the everyday Republican voter? Or, the Trump supporter who is maybe a first time voter? How is all this perceived? Cruz&rsquo;s argument is, I&rsquo;ve outmaneuvered you, I&rsquo;ve out-hustled you, I&rsquo;ve outsmarted you. &nbsp;(8;33)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Costa: </strong>It&rsquo;s split. Some voters I&rsquo;ve spoken to say the rules were known ahead of time, it&rsquo;s not like the rules are being re-written. And, this was well-known, it's just kind of an arcane part of the process and no one thought there&rsquo;d be a contested convention. At the same time, there&rsquo;s a lot of frustration because so much of Trump's base are voters who have disengaged in American politics, from the Republican Party, who find the Party and the country drifting away from them on trade and immigration. Now, to see the Party maneuvering against them for their participation and the person they voted for, there&rsquo;s a lot of anger. (9:02)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Costa: </strong>What I&rsquo;m really paying attention to is, [Trump] actually really not fallen too much nationally in the polls. And, if it&rsquo;s a close margin in Wisconsin on Tuesday, it&rsquo;s going to be a sign that Trump has had a stumble, but Cruz hasn&rsquo;t really caught fire. I think that&rsquo;s kind of the underplayed story this week. It&rsquo;s not so much about Trump sliding, everyone&rsquo;s been paying attention to that. But, when is Cruz going to really break out of his shell and really start to take away the primary. It really hasn&rsquo;t moved towards Cruz in a significant way, in terms of not only delegates, and endorsements, and money, but momentum. (10:30)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Let&rsquo;s say Trump went away. I don&rsquo;t think he&rsquo;s going to go away. But, let&rsquo;s say he went away tomorrow. He just decided I&rsquo;m sick of this. Let&rsquo;s say he loses huge in Wisconsin, really big margin. And, he gets hammered. Let&rsquo;s say he just goes away. What do you think would happen then, given your reporting on what the Establishment figures think in their heart of hearts about Cruz. Do you think Cruz would slide right into the convention and this would be cakewalk for him moving forward? Or, do you think something else would happen? Would the sights be then trained on Cruz?</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Costa: </strong>I think the sights would be on Cruz. I think if Trump dropped out of the race, you&rsquo;d see a real scramble. I think Kasich actually would get the momentum. You look at the polls in Pennsylvania, John Kasich is doing better than Cruz, and the upcoming states in May, like Indiana and, of course, if Trump dropped out before New York, that would maybe go to Kasich. If Trump dropped out of the race, let&rsquo;s say in the next month, I think eyes would turn to maybe a new candidate to add to the race to go right in in the California primary in early June to fight into the convention, because Cruz is well liked by many in the Establishment right now because he&rsquo;s anti-Trump, and able to beat Trump, perhaps, in some states. But, not because he&rsquo;s beloved. If Trump is not part of the equation, Cruz loses his value. (13:35)</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Costa:-Establishment-Planning-Ahead-for-Second-Ballot-in-Cleveland/-939795003702830719.htmlStaff2016-04-05T16:50:00ZErickson Says "Nope" to a Trump/Cruz TicketStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Erickson-Says-Nope-to-a-Trump/Cruz-Ticket/-24042115235772149.html2016-03-21T15:59:00Z2016-03-21T15:59:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, Erick Erickson,<em> </em>editor in chief of TheResurgent.Com and head of Conservatives Against Trump, revealed just how adamantly he opposes the election of billionaire Donald Trump. Erickson, who is pushing for conservatives to rally to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), admitted he would not vote for Donald Trump <em>even if</em> he joined forces with the Texas senator.</p>
<p>Erickson also addressed the creation of a &ldquo;blacklist&rdquo; of conservatives, which he explained as &ldquo;an effort by some people to go after elected officials who have endorsed Trump.&rdquo; Though he said, &ldquo;I still think conservatives can rally to Cruz,&rdquo; he failed to explicitly condemn the idea of ex-communicating staunch conservatives from the movement due to their endorsement.</p>
<p>Partial Transcript <a href="/b/Erickson-Says-Nope-to-a-Trump/Cruz-Ticket/576463973064761484.html">[LISTEN]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">***</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Are you all on board on the new blacklist apparently some people I&rsquo;ve never heard of are starting? &nbsp;(00:20)</p>
<p><strong>Erickson: </strong>That&rsquo;s an effort, I think, by some people to go after elected officials who have endorsed Trump. Right now, I still think conservatives can rally to Cruz, that there&rsquo;s time, particularly with Utah, Wisconsin, California, to really help Cruz. And, I think probably the effort needs to be focused there. (00:30)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>So, that doesn&rsquo;t seem like a strong condemnation of the blacklist idea. &nbsp;(00:47)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>So, if Ted Cruz, your guy, decides to cut a deal with Donald Trump, which I know they&rsquo;ve said, I&rsquo;m never going to do it, I never want to be Vice President, never going to do it. Let&rsquo;s say he does. Your guy, who you think is the end all, be all of conservatism, there&rsquo;s no one better than Ted Cruz in this race, signs on to Donald Trump, you&rsquo;re not going to vote for the ticket. (9:21)</p>
<p><strong>Erickson: </strong>Nope...If Ted Cruz and Donald Trump were to join a ticket, I would vote for a third party. (9:40)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Erickson-Says-Nope-to-a-Trump/Cruz-Ticket/-24042115235772149.htmlStaff2016-03-21T15:59:00ZGingrich: "Pro-Hillary Faction" of the GOP Pushing Third Party DealStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Gingrich:-Pro-Hillary-Faction-of-the-GOP-Pushing-Third-Party-Deal/-229808609396675627.html2016-03-16T17:09:00Z2016-03-16T17:09:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich reacted to last night&rsquo;s primary results, concluding, &ldquo;the reality is, barring some enormous change, Donald Trump is going to be the nominee.&rdquo; Moving forward, Gingrich condemned the idea of pushing a third party deal, denouncing any third party as &ldquo;a Hillary Clinton asset.&rdquo; Gingrich also dismissed McConnell&rsquo;s comment, which suggested supporting Paul Ryan as the GOP nominee, rather than any of the existing candidates, claiming the idea of dropping a new person into the convention is &ldquo;totally impossible.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Ultimately, Gingrich advised &ldquo;every responsible person who doesn&rsquo;t want Hillary Clinton appointing a genuinely radical Supreme Court and following policies that are a disaster both at home and abroad&rdquo; to support the Republican nominee, even if it is Donald Trump.</p>
<p>Partial Transcript <a href="/b/Gingrich:-GOP-3rd-Party-Candidate-Equals-A-Hillary-Clinton-Presidency/-570401424764686571.html">[LISTEN]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">***</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>What does the party do now? Do they learn lessons about policies? Do they push now it looks like Bill Kristol and others are pushing some third party deal? (4:48)</p>
<p><strong>Gingrich: </strong>I think we should describe that as the pro-Hillary faction. Any third party is a Hillary Clinton asset. You have two choices this fall, you have Hillary Clinton and the Republican. And if you propose a third person, that helps Hillary Clinton, period, end of story. So, every responsible person who doesn&rsquo;t want Hillary Clinton appointing a genuinely radical Supreme Court and following policies that are a disaster both at home and abroad, you only have one choice, that&rsquo;s the Republican nominee. We need to say that over and over, until it sinks in. &nbsp;(4:58)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Last night Ted Cruz, surprising to me, really hammered Trump. He went after Trump on two or three occasions. And, to me it&rsquo;s a time to unify. And, I know everyone wants to be at the top of the ticket, I get that. Cruz has won some states and has done pretty well overall, but that struck me as off last night. (6:34)</p>
<p><strong>Gingrich: </strong>I thought Cruz who is a very, very smart guy, but I thought he was really tone deaf last night...You could tell he was not a very happy camper last night. I think he had real hopes in North Carolina, he had real hopes in Missouri, and the truth is he came very close in both places. (7:35)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Gingrich:-Pro-Hillary-Faction-of-the-GOP-Pushing-Third-Party-Deal/-229808609396675627.htmlStaff2016-03-16T17:09:00ZDonald Trump won big on Super Tuesday IILaura Ingrahamhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Donald-Trump-won-big-on-Super-Tuesday-II/-712364038537996753.html2016-03-16T12:05:00Z2016-03-16T12:05:00ZPosted By: Laura Ingraham<br><br>Donald Trump won big on Super Tuesday II but he didn't and hasn't won everything. That means to wrap up the nomination, he will need to work with people like Mitch McConnell and other (yes, Establishment) Senators and Governors to show that there will be a place for all Republicans in his campaign.&nbsp; This would outflank the folks pushing for a third party challenge such as Erick Erickson and Bill Kristol, leaving them very isolated and alone. I really think that very few Republicans want to support a third party that would give the election to Hillary. <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Donald-Trump-won-big-on-Super-Tuesday-II/-712364038537996753.htmlLaura Ingraham2016-03-16T12:05:00ZDiGenova: Defending Trump's AttackersStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/DiGenova:-Defending-Trumps-Attackers/904946093911950981.html2016-03-14T18:08:00Z2016-03-14T18:08:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br>On today&rsquo;s program, former Republican U.S. attorney Joe DiGenova discussed the recent waves of Trump protests, claiming, &ldquo;What these people are trying to do is shut down the free speech of a candidate.&rdquo;&nbsp; While he conceded there are plenty of statutes dealing with the protection of federally protected individuals, &ldquo;the question for US attorneys around the country is, do they want to use those resources in a situation like this.&rdquo; Usually, he explained, federal offenses - such as crossing security<br /><br />DiGenova also expressed his frustration with Cruz, Rubio and Kasich, describing their decision to defend Trump&rsquo;s attackers as &ldquo;short sighted and really an embarrassment.&rdquo; Instead, he advised, &ldquo;They should be on offense against the attackers, not criticizing Trump.&rdquo;<br /><br /><br />Partial Transcript [<a href="/b/DiGenova:-Defending-Trumps-Attackers-Short-Sighted-and-an-Embarrassment/100203586348456955.html" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]<br /><br />***<br /><br />DiGenova: What these people are trying to do is shut down the free speech of a candidate. Many of these people will be charged with state crimes, mostly civil disorder, disorderly conduct and things like that If, in fact, they were ever to touch a political candidate or get close enough to try and grab a candidate, I&rsquo;m convinced at that point the US attorney in that district would file a charge. Even this Justice Department understands that the protection of presidential candidates is an important public function, even of the most politicized US Department of Justice in 50 years. (8:30)<br /><br />Ingraham: So, is there no federal statute that could be invoked here against, especially that protestor who broke through a barricade? There&rsquo;s no federal statute that can be invoked? (9:11)<br /><br />DiGenova: There are plenty of statutes that deal with the protection of federally protected individuals that could be used&hellip; attempted assault, assault, breaking lines...all of those things.When you break lines, with the intent to commit a crime or to stop someone or touch someone or prevent speech, all of those can be prosecuted. The question for US attorneys around the country is, do they want to use those resources in a situation like this. I think if this goes on and continues, the Justice Department is going to have to make a policy decision and instruct US attorneys in US cities to prosecute these people for various federal offenses. It is a crime to cross a security line. Once a security line set up and you are told you cannot cross it and are given fair warning and notice, if you cross it, you have committed a crime - a federal crime. Usually these are handled by the local authorities who do a very good job of prosecuting things like this. But, at a certain point, when it becomes disruptive of the political process and it&rsquo;s aim is to do that and to shut down a candidate, the Justice Department has an obligation to start really<br />&nbsp;going after these people.&nbsp; (9:43)<br /><br />DiGenova: Where did Trump come from? I&rsquo;ll tell you where he came from. He came from an incompetent Senate and House Leadership that, for seven years, didn&rsquo;t know how to message against this president. Seven years of incompetence from Boehner and McConnell. And, they wonder why there&rsquo;s a Trump. There&rsquo;s a Trump because of Obama and incompetent Republican leadership. And, Trump is serving a very valuable purpose, whether people like that or not.&nbsp; (12:50)<br /><br />DiGenova: I&rsquo;m furious at Ted Cruz, Kasich, Rubio for making excuses for these attackers. Those guys should be ashamed of themselves, all three of them. They should be on offense against the attackers, not criticizing Trump. Believe me, very short sighted and really an embarrassment for them to not go gung ho against the attackers. (14:46)<br /><br />Ingraham: There&rsquo;s a racial component to people who think the trade deals and the immigration is bad for american workers. There&rsquo;s a racial component to that. I have no<br />&nbsp;idea what that means. (15:50)<br /><br />DiGenova: Joe Scarborough, who had one of the worst attendance records in Congress as a member for showing up for hearings and everything, is really just a sad fixture of a bygone era of goofball American Republicanism. He really exemplifies the sloppy logic and the incompetent thinking that&rsquo;s out there. I suppose if you hang around the water cooler at MSNBC long enough, you&rsquo;ll eventually catch the disease. (16:01)<br /> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/DiGenova:-Defending-Trumps-Attackers/904946093911950981.htmlStaff2016-03-14T18:08:00ZHuckabee Warns Rubio will be an Extension of Bush PoliciesStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Huckabee-Warns-Rubio-will-be-an-Extension-of-Bush-Policies/236259721530604495.html2016-03-02T16:23:00Z2016-03-02T16:23:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Over the course of his campaign, Establishment sweetheart, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) has<a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/270700-rubio-casts-himself-as-child-of-the-reagan-revolution-in"> cast </a>himself as a &ldquo;child of Reagan.&rdquo; However, on today&rsquo;s show, Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) concluded a Rubio presidency would be closer to the policies of George W. Bush than the policies and the approach of Reagan. Electing Rubio, he warned, would be &ldquo;an extension of the very Republicanism that we have rejected, that the voters have decided hasn&rsquo;t worked for us.&rdquo;</p>
<p>It is these Establishment policies, Huckabee continued,, that &ldquo;in essence created Trump.&rdquo; The former Arkansas governor explained, it is &ldquo;the smug indifference - the elitism, the snobbery - of the ruling class...has just caused people to go out in droves and say, to heck with this, we&rsquo;re not going to go out there and just vote for the happy party guy anymore, because that has not worked out for us.&rdquo; Trump&rsquo;s success has the Establishment &ldquo;going berserk...they are so afraid that they&rsquo;re not going to control this process.&rdquo; Huckabee expressed his frustration at the Establishment&rsquo;s lack of responsiveness to voters, warning:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">I&rsquo;m convinced that if something doesn&rsquo;t change dramatically in this country, we may see a revolution, but not one with ballots, but one with bullets, because people are just sick and tired of a government that steps all over them and leaves them unprotected, and, frankly, doesn&rsquo;t care.</p>
<p>Huckabee also addressed the breakdown of Cruz&rsquo;s southern firewall in the south, where the Texas senator failed to secure South Carolina and many states in the SEC, though Huckabee did give Cruz credit for his victories in Oklahoma, Alaska, and Texas. He reflected on his own presidential run, saying, &ldquo;Rick Santorum and I both won more of those SEC states on a whole lot less money.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript <a href="/b/Huckabee:--Marco-Rubio-will-be-an-extension-of-the-Bush-legacy/-744437983281904945.html">[<strong>LISTEN</strong>]</a></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Huckabee: </strong>I just am tired of watching these bed-wetting Republican Establishment types get all upset because Donald Trump is winning. And, what really gets to me is that they seem to say, well, we really don&rsquo;t want an election, we want a selection. We want to make the pick, and to heck with these voters. How dare they vote for someone that we didn&rsquo;t choose. (4:20)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Huckabee: </strong>It tells us that these guys are only interested in protecting their own nest. Do they care about those 1400 workers in Carrier, Indian who lost their jobs? Did they weep one tear over that? No. are they concerned that there are many middle class people whose pensions just completely disappeared because their companies sent their jobs to Mexico and China, just went out of business and left them with nothing? Do they care about that? No. that&rsquo;s why Donald Trump is winning with those people. He won with Evangelicals. Ted Cruz made his whole case on he would win South Carolina and the SEC states and he would be unstoppable. He didn&rsquo;t win the SEC states, he didn't &nbsp;win South Carolina. He had a good night, I give him credit for having a great night. Winning Texas convincingly, winning Oklahoma, and then Alaska was a caucus with only a few thousand votes, but he won, I give him credit for that. But, his rationale, his whole foundation, of saying I&rsquo;m the guy who can win, by gosh, Rick Santorum and I both won more of those SEC states on a whole lot less money. Yet, you see these guys in the Establishment, they are going berserk. They&rsquo;re so afraid that they&rsquo;re not going to control this process. I&rsquo;m hearing them even talk about how they can manipulate the rules of the convention and if Trump should end up having the delegates they found a way they could take those from him. The whole point of American is we select our leaders by an election, and we do it with ballots, not bullets. And, we ought to be glad that we&rsquo;re doing it by ballots, because I&rsquo;m convinced that if something doesn&rsquo;t change dramatically in this country, we may see a revolution, but not one with ballots, but one with bullets, because people are just sick and tired of a government that steps all over them and leaves them unprotected, and, frankly, doesn&rsquo;t care. They&rsquo;re tired of it. And, the smug indifference - the elitism, the snobbery - of the ruling class is what has just caused people to go out in droves and say, to heck with this, we&rsquo;re not going to go out there and just vote for the happy party guy anymore, because that has not worked out for us. When these guys get elected they give us trade policies that kill us, they give us the Iranian deal, they give us Obamacare, they give us Planned Parenthood funding, and they never listen to us. (5:44)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>What would the Rubio presidency be closer to? The policies of George W. Bush or the policies and the approach of Reagan? (10:21)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Huckabee: </strong>That&rsquo;s what your article so brilliantly pointed out, that it will be an extension of the very Republicanism that we have rejected, that the voters have decided hasn&rsquo;t worked for us. The so-called orthodox conservatism that protects a handful of people at the expense of the masses is the conservatism that people are tired of because it only protects a few. &nbsp;(10:34)</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Huckabee-Warns-Rubio-will-be-an-Extension-of-Bush-Policies/236259721530604495.htmlStaff2016-03-02T16:23:00ZErickson: Cruz Would Be A 'Much More Conservative President' Than RubioStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Erickson:-Cruz-Would-Be-A-Much-More-Conservative-President-Than-Rubio/-295903817207856703.html2016-02-26T16:35:00Z2016-02-26T16:35:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on <em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, Ingraham discussed the candidates&rsquo; metamorphosis on various issues, questioning Erickson on why Rubio&rsquo;s shift on immigration is more trustworthy than Trump&rsquo;s shift on abortion. Erickson, who has repeatedly said voting for Trump would require &ldquo;compromising [his] values too much,&rdquo; has been adamantly opposed to the billionaire, largely due to Trump&rsquo;s lack of consistency on life issues. Ingraham pushed back, arguing, &ldquo;we&rsquo;ve had all these promises from all these pro-life politicians and 40 years later, we have Roe v. Wade and about 45 million babies who are murdered in the womb.&rdquo; She also questioned Rubio&rsquo;s dedication to the issue, noting his support for the Omnibus bill:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">I didn&rsquo;t see Rubio give a speech on the Senate floor saying, I will not support this budget, I will not support what Boehner or Paul Ryan is putting forward, I will stand against this because this president is completely out of line in funding these abortionists. I haven&rsquo;t heard that from him. That&rsquo;s my point.</p>
<p>Though Erickson did not change his stance on Trump, he did concede Rubio is not the most trustworthy on immigration, concluding, "Cruz would be better than Rubio on that issue. In fact, I think Cruz would be better on a number of issues and would be a far more conservative president, I think, than Rubio.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript <a href="/b/Erickson:-Cruz-Would-Be-A-Much-More-Conservative-President-Than-Rubio/245313279849739271.html">[<strong>LISTEN</strong>]</a></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>You said you will not support Trump. How is that helpful, given what&rsquo;s on the line here? If he ultimately is the nominee? (6:13)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Erickson: </strong>Well, because when I hear Donald Trump's statements and look at his past statements, it&rsquo;s not like a Mitt Romney or a John McCain where I didn&rsquo;t like them on a number of issues, but I thought, personally, they were okay people. I think at this point, with Trump, it&rsquo;s more, I would have to be compromising my values too much. He stood on stage last night, as he did in South Carolina, and talks about the good things Planned Parenthood does. I just, that&rsquo;s not a guy I can bring myself to support. I mean, life is, and I know it is for you as well, a huge issue and when I hear Trump talking about judges signing bills, there&rsquo;s so much on the line with religious liberty, I think it&rsquo;s time for people like me who really feel strongly about this to plant their flag that we don&rsquo;t really know what we&rsquo;re getting with Donald Trump, he&rsquo;s been on both sides of every issue, other than Canadian style healthcare and Planned Parenthood . I just have so many qualms about who is Donald Trump other than being a Hillary Clinton donor. (6:24)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>On the issue of changing, George W. Bush came in and said, I&rsquo;m going to have a humble foreign policy. He spoke against the scourge of national debt, budget deficits. Promised to lead the country out of this, and continue, quite frankly, the economic expansion under Clinton. Ted Cruz signed an op-ed with Paul Ryan on the Trade Promotion Authority, only to a few months later say, oops, I&rsquo;m not for TPP, which they didn&rsquo;t even discuss last night. And, Marco Rubio. We&rsquo;ve seen what Marco Rubio has done on the seminal issue of immigration. Obviously backed away from his own bill and is a very different candidate than he was a campaigner than he was for his senate seat. I think there have been a lot of changes and, as far as the life issue, I totally agree with you on that. 100% agree with you. Planned Parenthood is a scourge and should be put out of buisness.I don&rsquo;t think this is something Donald Trump is steeped in. I would respond to your point by saying, we&rsquo;ve had all these promises from all these pro-life politicians and 40 years later, we have Roe v. Wade and about 45 million babies who are murdered in the womb. So, we&rsquo;ve had a lot of people talk the talk, but haven&rsquo;t gotten anything done except on the state level. And, by the way Rubio and all these guys presided over funding of Planned Parenthood. I didn&rsquo;t see Rubio give a speech on the Senate floor saying, I will not support this budget, I will not support what Boehner or Paul Ryan is putting forward, I will stand against this because this president is completely out of line in funding these abortionists. I haven&rsquo;t heard that from him. That&rsquo;s my point. (7:27)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Erickson: </strong>I just don&rsquo;t believe Donald Trump when he says these things&hellip; (9:13)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>But, you believe Rubio is going to enforce that border? You believe Marco Rubio is going to really enforce that border and deport people from this country? &nbsp;(9:20)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Erickson: </strong>No, I think Cruz would be better than Rubio on that issue. I do. In fact, I think Cruz would be better on a number of issues and would be a far more conservative president, I think, than Rubio. But, between Cruz and Trump, I trust Ted Cruz more than Trump. And, I know Cruz and Rubio&rsquo;s character and like them as people and think they&rsquo;re good people. And, they&rsquo;re not going to be out on stage using the &lsquo;p&rsquo; word or whatever on stage running for president. And, I just, when I hear Trump say, I&rdquo;ll change or what have you and I see these Establishment guys in Washington throw Cruz under the bus and say, we think we can work with Trump, I believe them. I think they know themselves. (9:35)</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Erickson:-Cruz-Would-Be-A-Much-More-Conservative-President-Than-Rubio/-295903817207856703.htmlStaff2016-02-26T16:35:00Z"No Evidence" of Momentum for Rubio in FLStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/No-Evidence-of-Momentum-for-Rubio-in-FL/282783586704360389.html2016-02-24T18:25:00Z2016-02-24T18:25:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, Ben Domenech, publisher of <em>The Federalist</em>, discussed the future of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Sen. Ted Cruz&rsquo;s (R-TX), campaign. After coming in a distant second to frontrunner Donald Trump, Rubio is still searching for a state victory. Although Florida is Marco&rsquo;s home state, Domenech was not optimistic about Rubio&rsquo;s chances in the Sunshine State, predicting, &ldquo;Marco Rubio is still going to lose Florida. He's going to lose Florida to Donald Trump.&rdquo; Simply put, he explained, &ldquo;there's just no evidence that shows [Rubio] gaining momentum there.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Domenech also addressed the idea of Cruz bowing out of the race to consolidate support for Rubio, which he called a &ldquo;shoot the moon prospect.&rdquo; He explained, &ldquo;If you actually look at second choices, a lot of people who are backing Cruz would go to Donald Trump.&rdquo; Domenech labeled Rubio as a candidate, &ldquo;who really bends over backwards to try to make the media like him and everything else that comes with that,&rdquo; which does not sit well with voters currently aligned with Cruz.</p>
<p>With the race for second too close to call, Rubio and Cruz set their sights on Super Tuesday, when 13 states and 595 delegates are up for grabs.</p>
<p>Partial Transcript <a href="/b/Ben-Domenech:-There-is-NO-evidence-that-Rubio-can-win-Florida,-he-will-lose-FL-to-Trump/125835338295103687.html">[<strong>LISTEN</strong>]</a></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Domenech:</strong> You know I heard what you were saying there about Marco Rubio and I agree largely.&nbsp; I don't think it's possible for him to do that.&nbsp; And I feel like, honestly, your points earlier about this whole concept that Cruz should get out so that Rubio has a chance to win the nomination, I still think that's a shoot the moon prospect.&nbsp; If you actually look at second choices, a lot of people who are backing Cruz would go to Donald Trump and they'd do it, not just out of spite against the donor class or dislike for the elites or something like that, but because, honestly, he's to Marco Rubio's right on a number of these issues.&nbsp; Certainly on the issue of political correctness alone, you look at what Donald Trump would say and you like at the way that Marco Rubio behaves, and you see someone who's willing to offend elite opinion to risk being called a bigot, risk being called all these different things and doesn't really care about, versus someone who really bends over backwards to try to make the media like him and everything else that comes with that.&nbsp; So, I think you're right about that analysis.&nbsp; I don't think that that's something likely and that's something that we might be able to see within the next couple of weeks depending on how Cruz performs. &nbsp;(0:16)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham</strong>: For Cruz, what we see clearly, is that going after trump, responding to Trump, keeping the oxygen going about Trump has been a disaster.&nbsp; That hasn't worked at all.&nbsp; And to me those two guys really stand together against the old establishment dinosaur class.&nbsp; So why not work together.&nbsp; I was making the point about Rubio just because I'm thinking, how does Rubio possibly do it? I mean how does he possibly put any real stoppage to trump at this point and the only way I think he could do it is if he became more conservative.&nbsp; Your point is well taken.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">I've been saying Trump is going to win this for many many, for a long time. I'm trying to think, if I'm Rubio, how can I possibly put something together here, short of just dropping out and endorsing Trump.&nbsp; And I don't know if it's possible.&nbsp; It's certainly not possible for him to win by being more establishment, that's for sure.&nbsp; That's not going to help. (1:39)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Domenech</strong>: &nbsp;The establishment is going to treat Marco Rubio like Weekend at Bernie's.&nbsp; They are going to haul him all the way to the convention.&nbsp; And you're going to see that happen, I think, regardless of what sort of plays out these next couple of weeks.&nbsp; It is funny how no matter how the finishes work, if you end up with the same number of delegates or something like that, it's always a bad night for Cruz and a good night for Rubio.&nbsp; And I think that in this situation though, you could very easily wake up on March 16 and find that, even if Cruz had gotten out, let's say he performed poorly in the next week or so and decides 'ok establishment, I'm going to give you your one shot to beat Donald Trump, I'm not going to be the guy blamed for nominating him or something like that', it's that Marco Rubio is still going to lose Florida. He's going to lose Florida to Donald Trump.&nbsp; I mean there's just no evidence that shows him gaining momentum there, even in the wake of Jeb Bush getting out. &nbsp;(2:40)</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/No-Evidence-of-Momentum-for-Rubio-in-FL/282783586704360389.htmlStaff2016-02-24T18:25:00ZTrump Won't Rule Out Appointing Cruz to SCOTUSStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Trump-Wont-Rule-Out-Appointing-Cruz-to-SCOTUS/693256345812542920.html2016-02-19T17:30:00Z2016-02-19T17:30:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, GOP frontrunner Donald Trump discussed the possibility of nominating Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) to the Supreme Court, should he be become president. Despite an ongoing feud, however, Trump did not explicitly condemn the idea of appointing the Texas senator to the Supreme Court. Initially, Trump reiterated, &ldquo;[Cruz] does not tell the truth...he lies.&rdquo; However, when asked about Cruz&rsquo;s legal expertise, Trump did not argue against the senator&rsquo;s legal mind, concluding, &ldquo;We&rsquo;ll see what happens.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Ingraham also pressed Trump on his campaign financing, asking if the billionaire would be willing to spend his own money going forward to secure the nomination. He responded, &ldquo;I&rsquo;ve spent already a lot. And, I will continue.&rdquo; However, when pressed, Trump discussed only how much he has already spent, failing to reveal how much he would be willing to spend as the campaign progresses.</p>
<p>Partial Transcript [<a href="/b/Donald-Trump:-Says-Media-Has-Overblown-Feud-With-Pope/283407179237058327.html" target="_blank"><strong>LISTEN</strong></a>]</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Do you envision, or could you envision, I should say, could you imagine naming Ted Cruz to the Supreme Court if you were president? Nominating him? (10:57)</p>
<p><strong>Trump: </strong>Well, I wouldn&rsquo;t want to say. I&rsquo;ve had a lot of problems with him, because he does not tell the truth. I tell you what, he lies. I&rsquo;ve never seen anything like it. He mixes things up. He said, Donald Trump is anti-gun. And, I said, wait a minute, I&rsquo;m the most pro-second amendment person on the stage, by far. And, he&rsquo;ll just say it. And, then we&rsquo;ll hear he&rsquo;s saying it. Then, maybe, he&rsquo;ll stop saying it. (11:14)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>But, you don&rsquo;t deny his legal expertise? His legal mind? (11:42)</p>
<p><strong>Trump: </strong>I guess, I guess. (11:43)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>He&rsquo;s one of the smartest people I&rsquo;ve ever met. I think he&rsquo;d be a fabulous justice. (11:44)</p>
<p><strong>Trump: </strong>He&rsquo;d have to be truthful. You do, eh? (11:45)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Yes, I do. (11:50)</p>
<p><strong>Trump: </strong>He&rsquo;d have to be a truthful person, also. Alright, well, let&rsquo;s see. I mean, let&rsquo;s see. We&rsquo;re not finished yet. We&rsquo;ll see what happens. But, we&rsquo;ve had a problem. &nbsp;(11:51)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>A friend of mine said to me the other day - someone know you - said, Trump is just defying all the experts, it&rsquo;s hilarious, it&rsquo;s great, but he&rsquo;s not going to spend his own money to win this. He&rsquo;s not going to lay down $50-100 million dollars going through the campaign, through the rest of the primaries, through the general. And, I had to ask you about it. Would you spend your own money to win this? (16:59)</p>
<p><strong>Trump: </strong>Well, I&rsquo;ve spent already a lot. And, I will continue. I&rsquo;m self-funding. I think that&rsquo;s one of the things that people respect because I&rsquo;m not controlled by the special interests, by the drug companies, by the electric company . . . I&rsquo;m not controlled by anybody. I&rsquo;m doing what&rsquo;s right for the people. (17:19)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>So, you&rsquo;re going to spend your own money to win this? (17:47)</p>
<p><strong>Trump: </strong>Well, that&rsquo;s what I&rsquo;ve been doing. Already I&rsquo;ve spent probably $20 million, that&rsquo;s a lot of money. &nbsp;(17:48)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Trump-Wont-Rule-Out-Appointing-Cruz-to-SCOTUS/693256345812542920.htmlStaff2016-02-19T17:30:00ZGINGRICH: No Evidence Attacks on GWB are Hurting TrumpStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/GINGRICH:-No-Evidence-Attacks-on-GWB-are-Hurting-Trump/575953768788520654.html2016-02-18T17:37:00Z2016-02-18T17:37:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich blasted the president who, &ldquo;doesn&rsquo;t have time for Scalia&rsquo;s funeral, but will have time to go visit the Castros.&rdquo; He continued, &ldquo;you couldn&rsquo;t have a better sense of values than a president who cannot attend the funeral of the leading conservative intellectual in the court, but can trot off to Cuba to help prop up a communist dictatorship.&rdquo; The American people, Gingrich explained, are turning to Trump as he is &ldquo;the one guy who is going to say it&rsquo;s stupid.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Gingrich also addressed Trump&rsquo;s attacks on former President George W. Bush, which he had predicted would backfire on the billionaire. However, he admitted, &ldquo;There&rsquo;s no evidence that disagreeing about 9/11, disagreeing about whether we&rsquo;ve been successful in the region, has hurt Trump one bit.&rdquo; Going forward, Gingrich predicted Trump will continue to lead the GOP field as long as he is taking on a field of multiple candidates; therefore, he explained, &ldquo;The longer [Jeb] stays in and splits the vote, the bigger the momentum for Trump.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript [<a href="/b/Gingrich:-Obama-can-make-time-to-travel-to-Cuba-but-cannot-attend-Scalias-funeral/-536551395587510713.html" target="_blank"><strong>LISTEN</strong></a>]</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Gingrich: </strong>Obama doesn&rsquo;t have time for Scalia&rsquo;s funeral, but will have time to go visit the Castros. Now, you couldn&rsquo;t have a better sense of values than a president who cannot attend the funeral of the leading conservative intellectual in the court, but can trot off to Cuba to help prop up a communist dictatorship. And, the average American looks at that and they just think, that is just stupid. So, they look at Trump, and they think this is the one guy who is going to say it&rsquo;s stupid. And, it gives him a huge advantage. But, I will also confess, I didn&rsquo;t see a lot of this coming. When he took on George W. Bush, I thought it would hurt him and it hasn&rsquo;t hurt him at all. There&rsquo;s no evidence that disagreeing about 9/11, disagreeing about whether we&rsquo;ve been successful in the region, has hurt Trump one bit. And, that has got to be a considerable shock to everybody who grew up in the old order. (11:12) <strong><br /></strong></p>
<p><strong>Gingrich: </strong>In a sad way, National Review has become the Establishment organ of conservatism, rather than the conservative organ. And, they want to get 20-some guys together and write articles about Trump, that&rsquo;s fine. Trump, in the meantime, was finding 20,000 people who wanted to vote for him. So, that&rsquo;s a great shock to elites, whether they're conservative or liberal, but the American people still largely dominate the country. And, if the American people don&rsquo;t agree with what you just wrote, you&rsquo;re not going to get very far. (13:19)&nbsp;</p>
<strong>Gingrich: </strong>The longer [Jeb] stays in and splits the vote, the bigger the momentum for Trump is going to get to be. And, that&rsquo;s what everybody has to confront. As long as Trump is taking on a field of four or five candidates, he is going to have, by far, the largest block. &nbsp;(15:00) <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/GINGRICH:-No-Evidence-Attacks-on-GWB-are-Hurting-Trump/575953768788520654.htmlStaff2016-02-18T17:37:00ZScalia's Son Rejects Conspiracy Theories Surrounding Father's DeathStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Scalias-Son-Rejects-Conspiracy-Theories-Surrounding-Fathers-Death/113833868766283001.html2016-02-17T17:23:00Z2016-02-17T17:23:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>The son of former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Wednesday rejected conspiracy theories that his father was the victim of foul play.</p>
<p>Appearing on &ldquo;The Laura Ingraham Show,&rdquo; Eugene Scalia called the suggestions a &ldquo;hurtful distraction for a family in mourning&rdquo; and asked Americans for their prayers.</p>
<p>&ldquo;Our family just has no doubt that he was taken from us by natural causes,&rdquo; said the younger Scalia, who practices law. &ldquo;We accept that. We&rsquo;re praying for him. We ask others to accept that and pray for him.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Read the full article <a href="http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/scalias-son-justice-died-of-natural-causes/" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
<p>Partial Transcript [<a href="/b/Eugene-Scalia-Reflects-on-His-Fathers-Life-and-Incredible-Legacy/-545861523075907415.html" target="_blank"><strong>LISTEN</strong></a>]</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">&nbsp;</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>I have to ask you about all the conspiracy theories out there. There was the ranch guy said, this, they found your dad this way. Again, as a son, you hear all of this, obviously there&rsquo;s stuff you aren&rsquo;t going to tell us, but is there any truth to any of these conspiracy theories? (4:00)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Scalia: </strong>I haven&rsquo;t even tried to follow it all. But, what I would say is, as you said earlier, my father was like a force of nature. He seemed sort of a permanent institution. But, he would have been the first to tell you - the first - that, we&rsquo;re from dust, we return to dust, your life could be taken from you at any instant. He was a month shy of 80 years old. He lived to see an incredibly full and active life, but I knew, and he knew, that he was at a place in life where he could be taken from this world at any time and that&rsquo;s what happened last week. Our family just has no doubt he died of natural causes. And, we accept that. We&rsquo;re praying for him, we ask others to accept that and pray for him. And, we also appreciate all those who are honoring his legacy as a justice and, as you&rsquo;re doing a bit, as a father.&nbsp; You mentioned, honestly, it&rsquo;s, I think, a distraction from a great man and his legacy at a time when there&rsquo;s so much to be said about that and to help people even more fully appreciate that. And, on a personal level, I think it&rsquo;s a bit of a hurtful distraction for a family that&rsquo;s mourning. And, that&rsquo;s all I want to say about that topic. (4:13)</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Scalias-Son-Rejects-Conspiracy-Theories-Surrounding-Fathers-Death/113833868766283001.htmlStaff2016-02-17T17:23:00ZRyan Willing to Work with Trump, Dodges Rubio QuestionStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Ryan-Willing-to-Work-with-Trump,-Dodges-Rubio-Question/984390566333946370.html2016-02-17T17:01:00Z2016-02-17T17:01:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, House Speaker Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) confirmed he would be willing to work with &ldquo;whoever the nominee is,&rdquo; even Donald Trump. Ryan has devoted much of his career expanding immigration, supporting Schumer-Rubio amnesty bill in 2013, and, more recently, been advocating for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This track record seems to align most closely with Establishment sweetheart, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), but Ryan refused to &ldquo;take the bait,&rdquo; claiming, &ldquo;I&rsquo;m actually Switzerland on this thing.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Ryan also addressed protecting American workers, stressing the importance of tax reform. Referencing Disney&rsquo;s controversial decision to <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/26/lawyer-displaced-disney-workers-1200-american-workers-n-y-training-foreign-replacements/" target="_blank">displace </a>Americans, Ryan suggested, &ldquo;Let&rsquo;s clean up our tax laws so Disney doesn&rsquo;t make moves like that.&rdquo; Finally, he vowed to work to, &ldquo;Get our own people back to work, secure the border, and do these things we need to do get higher wages.&rdquo;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript [<a href="/b/Speaker-Ryan:-Securing-the-Southern-Border-is-a-key-issue-for-National-Security,-the-U.S.-has-drugs-coming-through-and-the-threat-of-ISIS./-518171758446532611.html" target="_blank"><strong>LISTEN</strong></a>]</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Could you work with [Trump] if he were ultimately the President of the United States? (1:58)</p>
<p><strong>Ryan: </strong>I&rsquo;m going to work with whoever the nominee is. And, I&rsquo;ve made that very clear to everybody, which is, look, I&rsquo;m going to work with whoever our nominee is. (2:02)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Does the American worker get relief here? I don&rsquo;t mean to beat the dead horse here on the Disney workers and the foreign workers and that stuff. I just think if the Establishment compromised a little bit on that issue with the people, I think the sky's the limit for how far the Republican Party can go. (6:15)</p>
<p><strong>Ryan: </strong>On those workers you&rsquo;re talking about, let&rsquo;s deal with welfare, let&rsquo;s get the people who are in America, who are able-bodied adults, who aren&rsquo;t looking for work, let&rsquo;s get them into the workforce before we talk about other issues. Let&rsquo;s get poverty reduced by moving people from welfare to work and let&rsquo;s have tax reform that doesn&rsquo;t reward people for moving overseas, but that keeps companies here in America. Let&rsquo;s clean up our tax laws so Disney doesn&rsquo;t make moves like that. We&rsquo;re losing the biggest public company in Wisconsin to Ireland, in part because of our tax laws. So, this is a huge part of our agenda, which is, how do you get American jobs, American growth for American workers, so we have faster economic growth, higher wages. Get our own people back to work, secure the border, and do these things we need to do get higher wages, better incomes, and, let&rsquo;s prevent a debt crisis and take on the entitlements that are going to give us a debt crisis. (6:32)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Is Rubio more of a kind of guy you can work with? I&rsquo;m trying to think about one Establishment guy who can kind of transcend Trump. Is Rubio it? Especially on issues like immigration, trade, and just this five point plan you have. Is he more your personality type? (7:36)</p>
<p><strong>Ryan: </strong>I appreciate the opportunity to take the bait, I&rsquo;m not going to take the bait. Technically I&rsquo;m actually the chair of the convention, Speaker of the House is chair of the convention. So, I&rsquo;m actually Switzerland on this thing. (7:49)</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Ryan-Willing-to-Work-with-Trump,-Dodges-Rubio-Question/984390566333946370.htmlStaff2016-02-17T17:01:00ZSESSIONS: Cruz Stood With Me Fighting Amnesty, Rubio was the 'salesperson' for the Gang of EightStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/SESSIONS:-Cruz-Stood-With-Me-Fighting-Amnesty,-Rubio-was-the-salesperson-for-the-Gang-of-Eight/-53410293758448176.html2016-02-16T17:41:00Z2016-02-16T17:41:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on <em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) shut down the argument Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) did not oppose the controversial Schumer-Rubio immigration bill as adamantly as he claims on the campaign trail. Sessions expressed extreme frustration with this argument, reiterating, &ldquo;Ted Cruz opposed this bill. He stood with me.&rdquo; He contrasted Cruz&rsquo;s position with Sen. Marco Rubio&rsquo;s, who he described as the &ldquo;spokesperson&rdquo; for the Gang of Eight.</p>
<p>Sen. Rubio (R-FL) has been stressing Cruz&rsquo;s amendments during the immigration debate, another argument Sessions dismissed, explaining, &ldquo;we offered a number of amendments and those amendments were designed to highlight problems with the bill and to expose the positions of those advancing the bill.&rdquo; Though he conceded Cruz previously advocated increasing the number of H-1B visas, Sessions believes the senator has &ldquo;moved on that as he&rsquo;s learned more about it.&rdquo;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript [<a href="/b/Sen.-Sessions:-Cruz-Stood-With-Me-Fighting-Amnesty,-Rubio-was-the-salesperson-for-the-Gang-of-Eight/626730257280315880.html" target="_blank"><strong>LISTEN</strong></a>]</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>There is an argument that keeps coming up in the debates about Ted Cruz. And, specifically, whether Cruz was standing with you tirelessly to fight against the Gang of 8 bill. And, as you remember, you came on my show frequently during that real fight. And, Cruz came on, not often, but what really did happen there for the people that really weren&rsquo;t following it in 2013 as closely as we were. Who was really there with you in the trenches and who really fought the hardest, side-by-side with you on the issue of legal immigration and illegal immigration? (6:05)&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Sessions:</strong> Look, Americans will support immigration, but the numbers are too large and the legislation that came forward was a disaster in my opinion. It had huge amounts of money behind it, they met in secret for months, the Gang of 8 senators met with them, but really it was the ACLU, it was La Raza, it was the Obama administration, other special interest groups, like the Chamber of Commerce. These were writing the bill. So, it came out and it had a big support. It got well over 60 votes in the U.S. Senate. It passed out of our committee with an overwhelming vote. And, Ted Cruz and I and Chuck Grassley and Mike Lee, we fought against it. He was with me. And, this bill was moving with great momentum and it almost passed the House. This was a near run thing. Ted opposed the bill. This is one of the things that frustrates me. Ted Cruz opposed this bill. He stood with me and those who promoted it really were in error, I thought. (6:48)&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Marco Rubio, in every debate, has been trying to make this argument that Ted Cruz actually offered an amendment during this whole conflagration about immigration saying, well, they can never get citizenship. They can be legally here, but they can&rsquo;t get citizenship or something like that. I&rsquo;m paraphrasing, obviously. Did that happen, or...? (8:05)&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Sessions: </strong>Yeah, it did. In other words, we offered a number of amendments and those amendments were designed to highlight problems with the bill and to expose the positions of those advancing the bill. So, that amendment made clear to the American people - if you were watching it - that the bill had citizenship in it. And, so Ted offered that to block citizenship and the whole Gang of 8 stuck together, they accepted no amendments and they killed every amendment and they killed that one, which showed citizenship was a critical part of what they wanted in the bill. He didn&rsquo;t vote for the bill, he voted against the bill, just like I did. (8:29)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>This is what&rsquo;s very frustrating to me. The Establishment now is trying to rewrite history. And, both Jeb and Rubio are working hand and glove to try to remake it all now because the country revolted against this, the Republicans revolted against this, I think a lot of Democrats revolted against it. And now, they&rsquo;re trying to say, but now we see the country is only going to accept enforcement first and so Rubio says, we&rsquo;re never going to get anything passed until we show good faith on the border. That&rsquo;s Rubio&rsquo;s argument now. And, to that you say what? (9:16)</p>
<p><strong>Sessions: </strong>The bill didn&rsquo;t do that. The bill provided a pathway to citizenship and immediate legal status, social security participation and Medicare participation over a period of years. And, it was a promise, once again, that we&rsquo;d have enforcement in the future. And, that&rsquo;s what&rsquo;s happened before. That&rsquo;s what Sen. Grassley continues to say so correctly, that yes, you get the legality now and only a promise of enforcement in the future. So, that was a fundamental flaw in the bill. (9:52)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Tell me whether you think Marco Rubio has changed. Has he learned the lesson on all of this or is it the same Rubio as we heard in 2013, but he&rsquo;s packaging it in a different way? (10:33)</p>
<p><strong>Sessions: </strong>I don&rsquo;t know exactly what&rsquo;s in his heart and mind about it, but he was the promoter of it. He was the sales person for the Republican Party to advance the bill that was written in secret, by the special interest groups. And, so I assume he believed what was in the bill. I would think after all this process he&rsquo;s re-evaluated some, and surely he would perhaps be willing to support a better bill in the future. (10:58)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Wasn&rsquo;t Ted Cruz in favor of doubling or tripling the number of H-1B visa holders? (12:12)</p>
<p><strong>Sessions: </strong>Cruz did indicate growth in those numbers. And, that was a point that I disagreed with. He took the view that we need to end the illegality, but we don&rsquo;t mind having more immigrants. I think he has learned, and others have learned, we don&rsquo;t have the jobs to give to immigrants and to Americans. We don&rsquo;t have enough jobs for the American people now. We don&rsquo;t need to be surging those numbers. So, with regard to that issue, he did at one point favor more for higher skilled immigrants that would have a better chance to succeed in America. (12:20)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>But, he&rsquo;s now more in line with your thinking on that. And, that&rsquo;s heartfelt, correct? That&rsquo;s your sense? (13:07)</p>
<p><strong>Sessions: </strong>I think so, yeah. He&rsquo;s moved on that as he&rsquo;s learned more about it. (13:14)</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/SESSIONS:-Cruz-Stood-With-Me-Fighting-Amnesty,-Rubio-was-the-salesperson-for-the-Gang-of-Eight/-53410293758448176.htmlStaff2016-02-16T17:41:00ZSESSIONS: Trump Could Grow the GOP, Bring Back ModeratesStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/SESSIONS:-Trump-Could-Grow-the-GOP,-Bring-Back-Moderates/922377055641875777.html2016-02-16T17:20:00Z2016-02-16T17:20:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) admitted billionaire Donald Trump is &ldquo;reaching people that we have to have come into our party.&rdquo; He suggested Trump&rsquo;s message is resonating with working class Americans, who have not been helped by current policies. Sessions admitted many of these individuals have been shifting to the Democratic Party, but suggested &ldquo;they can be brought back.&rdquo; And, according to the Alabama senator, Donald Trump is capable of &ldquo;expanding the tent in that regard.&rdquo;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript [<a href="/b/Sen.-Sessions:-Cruz-Stood-With-Me-Fighting-Amnesty,-Rubio-was-the-salesperson-for-the-Gang-of-Eight/626730257280315880.html" target="_blank"><strong>LISTEN</strong></a>]</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">&nbsp;</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>On growing the Republican Party, a lot of people think, wow, that debate on Saturday night was pretty rough. Trump basically took a flamethrower to the whole Bush legacy, pretty rough language, etc. But, where&rsquo;s the opportunity to grow the party and who - and I know you&rsquo;re not endorsing anyone, that&rsquo;s fine - but, who is striking a note that could grow the party among non-traditional Republican voters? (14:25)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Sessions: </strong>Well, you mentioned the Trump phenomenon. I think, indeed, he is reaching people that we have to have come into our party. They&rsquo;re working Americans of all stripes. These are people who make below $50,000 a year, the country isn&rsquo;t doing well for them right now. People may be getting rich in Wall Street, but not the average worker. But, he&rsquo;s appealing to them. A lot of them have been going over to Democrats, but they can be brought back and, they say we need to expand the tent, I think he&rsquo;s expanding the tent in that regard. (14:52)</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/SESSIONS:-Trump-Could-Grow-the-GOP,-Bring-Back-Moderates/922377055641875777.htmlStaff2016-02-16T17:20:00ZBuchanan: Brokered Convention? No Way.Staffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Buchanan:-Brokered-Convention-No-Way./699968505949270928.html2016-02-12T18:20:00Z2016-02-12T18:20:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on <em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, Pat Buchanan responded to Marco Rubio&rsquo;s campaign, which has been openly <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/269089-rubio-campaign-manager-eyes-brokered-convention">discussing</a> the possibility of a brokered convention. Following the New Hampshire primary, Rubio&rsquo;s campaign manager, Terry Sullivan said he&rsquo;d be &ldquo;surprised&rdquo; if the GOP&rsquo;s nominating contest was wrapped up before the July 18 convention in Cleveland. However, when asked about the possibility of a brokered convention, Buchanan said, &ldquo;No way...It&rsquo;s not going to happen.&rdquo; He explained, &ldquo;The opposition has to get more than half of the votes to get a brokered convention,&rdquo; and suggested given the current candidate field, a brokered convention is unlikely. Buchanan pointed to the 1844 brokered convention, saying, &ldquo;Jimmy Polk came from nowhere, you had two-thirds of the delegates to be nominated.&rdquo; Buchanan then compared this to today&rsquo;s political field, speculating if three or four candidates headed into the convention, Trump would simply choose one to be his vice president, deliver his delegates, and wrap up the nomination. Finally, Buchanan called hopes for a brokered convention &ldquo;prayerful thinking on the part of the neo-cons, if they prayed.&rdquo;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript [<a href="/b/Buchanan:-Brokered-Convention-No-Way./-508453603719301498.html" target="_blank"><strong>LISTEN</strong></a>]</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">***</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Arroyo: </strong>I want to talk to you about this notion that Marco Rubio's campaign has raised in recent days. And, they are claiming we might be facing a brokered convention. (9:05)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Buchanan: </strong>No way. (9:16)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Arroyo: </strong>You don&rsquo;t think so? (9:17)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Buchanan: </strong>No, I don&rsquo;t. And, let me give you an example. The opposition has to get more than half of the votes to get a brokered convention. You only need 50%. Listen, when you used to have brokered conventions like 1844 and Jimmy Polk came from nowhere, you had two-thirds of the delegates to be nominated. Now, it&rsquo;s 50%. Let&rsquo;s suppose three or four candidates headed into the convention, and say Trump didn&rsquo;t have enough to be nominated. What he does is he calls up Cruz and says would you like to be my vice president? And, Cruz says, no, I think i&rsquo;m going to go for the top job when we get to the convention. And, so, Donald says, well, thanks. So, he calls the third guy and says, do you want to get on the ticket? And, you deliver your delegates and it&rsquo;s all over. It&rsquo;s not going to happen. We haven&rsquo;t had a brokered convention. They claim the &lsquo;76 one was, but Ford went in there with the majority of delegates. (9:18)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Arroyo: </strong>Do you think this is wishful thinking on the part of some who are just trying to whip up donors in hopes they can keep this thing going until May? (10:15)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Buchanan: </strong>It&rsquo;s prayerful thinking on the part of the neo-cons, if they prayed. (10:20)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Buchanan:-Brokered-Convention-No-Way./699968505949270928.htmlStaff2016-02-12T18:20:00ZJeb like Reagan? No Comparison at all on Foreign PolicyStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Jeb-like-Reagan-No-Comparison-at-all-on-Foreign-Policy/-897810354840011003.html2016-02-11T18:26:00Z2016-02-11T18:26:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, Reagan biographer, Craig Shirley, addressed comparisons between Jeb Bush and Ronald Reagan. Nicole Wallace claimed, &ldquo;Jeb is the rightful occupier of that Reagan-ism in foreign policy.&rdquo; Shirley responded, challenging her to &ldquo;compare Jeb Bush's experience in foreign policy with Ronald Reagan's.&rdquo; Regarding Jeb Bush&rsquo;s foreign policy, Shirley simply said, &ldquo;There's no comparison at all...They're just making fools of themselves by trying to compare themselves to Reagan.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Shirley also disagreed with the notion a presidential candidate must have extensive foreign policy experience to become president, explaining, &ldquo;very few men step into the presidency with the foreign policy experience that they really, really need.&rdquo; Shirley referenced John Kennedy, who served in the military prior to the presidency, and, of course, Barack Obama who had no foreign policy experience at all. And, he explained, Reagan, who was also a &ldquo;student of history,&rdquo; had been on many trade missions as governor and traveled extensively before assuming the presidency.</p>
<p>Partial Transcript [<a href="/b/Shirley:-Jeb-like-Reagan-No-comparison-at-all-with-Foreign-Policy/648782052893644155.html" target="_blank"><strong>LISTEN</strong></a>]</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">***</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham:</strong> This is what Nicole Wallace, who used to work for George W. Bush on MSNBC, what she said about Jeb&rsquo;s foreign policy credibility. Let&rsquo;s listen.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong><em>Wallace: </em></strong><em>&ldquo;I think Jeb is the rightful occupier of that Reagan-ism in foreign policy. And, whether he prevails or not will say more about the Party than Jeb Bush, but Jeb Bush has done the work, he understands the world in a nuanced manner. Unfortunately for Jeb Bush, we are not having a nuanced debate about foreign policy at this point in the campaign. We might have more of one in South Carolina, but the notion that Jeb Bush is sort of behind Marco Rubio on matters of foreign policy is ludicrous.&rdquo;</em>(2:49)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham:</strong> Take it away, Craig. She said he&rsquo;s more like Reagan than anyone else on the stage. (3:18)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Shirley: </strong>She didn't say how. She didn't say how he's like Reagan and I defy her to compare Jeb Bush's experience in foreign policy with Ronald Reagan's. First of all, let&rsquo;s accept the fact that, except for military generals like Dwight Eisenhower, is that very few men step into the presidency with the foreign policy experience that they really, really need. It's an on the job training session. I mean, Barack Obama didn't have any foreign policy experience, didn't serve in the military. John Kennedy on the other hand served in the military and was a world traveler, so at least he understood the world in 1960 when he became president. You know it's a catch and miss proposition, but obviously Jeb . . . you know, Reagan was on many trade missions as governor of California, he was on the CA review board, he traveled the world extensively, except he never went to the Middle East in his entire life, never ever went to Israel, never went to the Middle East, and only committed troops there once, and it was a great regret of his presidency. &nbsp;(3:33)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham</strong>: So, back to policy. Jeb now with George W. campaigning for him in South Carolina.&nbsp; He's going to try to hold on to the Reagan mantel, clearly that's going to be part of their campaign pitch to the southern voters.&nbsp; Now let&rsquo;s go back to what happened in W's two terms. We committed ourselves to two foreign entanglements, the public rejected both of them by the end of the second term, and we got the virulent anti-war president we've ever had in the presidency, in the White House, in Barack Obama.&nbsp; So, as far as I can tell, Jeb supports all the things his brother did, and how do those two things, Iraq &amp; Afghanistan, the war machine of the Bush administration, how does that compare with what Reagan's priorities were? (4:35)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Shirley:</strong> There's no comparison at all.&nbsp; First of all, the Middle East was never really on Reagan's mind, his mind was on the Soviet Union and the inherent threat of Soviet hegemony throughout the world.&nbsp; So, that was where his mind was at, but even then he was going to win this war economically and not militarily.&nbsp; He was also a student of history and he knew that occupying army's fomented revolution and it was better to work with indigenous forces, like the Contras in Nicaragua, like solidarity in Poland, &nbsp;like the velvet revolution in Czechoslovakia, work with the indigenous freedom forces because that wouldn't foment anti-Americanism the way invading armies, you know the Napoleon and the Cesar and Alexander, all failed as occupiers of conquered countries because of the harshness of their policy and we failed in Iraq and we failed Afghanistan because of our occupation there and because of the harshness of our policies. (5:21)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Shirley: </strong>They can say it all they want, but common sense and a cursory study of history proves anything but, and they're just making fools of themselves by trying to compare themselves to Reagan. (6:29)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Jeb-like-Reagan-No-Comparison-at-all-on-Foreign-Policy/-897810354840011003.htmlStaff2016-02-11T18:26:00ZFemale Combat Vet Warns Against Women in CombatStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Female-Combat-Vet-Warns-Against-Women-in-Combat/542435523818884086.html2016-02-10T17:01:00Z2016-02-10T17:01:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><span dir="ltr">
<p>Today on <em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, Jude Eden, a female Marine, Iraq war, combat vet, addressed the idea that women should register with the selective service, which would make it possible for America to draft women into ground combat. Despite her background, Eden adamantly opposes the inclusion of women in combat zones, claiming, &ldquo;women have a lot of other risks and it's expensive to do this to integrate the combat units, and then this whole thing with the draft question is the cart coming after the horse.&rdquo; Further, Eden reiterated, &ldquo;even though feminists want to tell us that men are interchangeable with women, it just ain't so.&rdquo;&nbsp;</p>
<p>Regarding the GOP candidates, Eden said, &ldquo; I don't think they put any thought into this, any serious thought into this.&rdquo; Most of the candidates, excluding Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), have announced support for including women in the draft. In last week&rsquo;s ABC debate, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL), and Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ), all embraced the idea Sen. Cruz claims is <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/07/politics/ted-cruz-drafting-women-nuts/" target="_blank">&ldquo;nuts.&rdquo; </a>According to Eden, the case against women in combat would be fairly easy to make, but candidates and generals are &ldquo;terrified of being accused of war on women.&rdquo; She continued, &ldquo;they are so afraid of that label, except for Cruz, that they're not willing to just make the argument, make the case.&rdquo;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Eden emphatically opposed the inclusion of women in combat, claiming the decision could be a matter of &ldquo;life and death&rdquo; for some units, explaining, &ldquo;it might be merely destructive and expensive for support units, it's going to be catastrophic for the infantry units.&rdquo;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<div style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;">Partial Transcript [<a href="/b/Female-Combat-Vet-Warns-Against-Women-in-Combat/-848987339135408771.html" target="_blank"><strong>LISTEN</strong></a>]</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0; border-style: none;">
<p><strong>Eden</strong>: Well, I thought, all of them, I thought that was ridiculous.&nbsp; I don't think they put any thought into this, any serious thought into this.&nbsp; I had heard Cruz's position on this before.&nbsp; He answered the center for military readiness survey, and you know, making a standard is one issue, but that's not the end all just because women make the standard doesn't mean there's no other factors in this.&nbsp; There are many other factors that even if some women are able to make these men's minimum standards, and by the way, if you're a woman you better be able to do a hell of a lot better than men's minimums if you want to survive in direct ground combat.&nbsp; That's something that nobody else is saying.&nbsp; But, women have a lot of other risks and it's expensive to do this to integrate the combat units, and then this whole thing with the draft question is the cart coming after the horse. The horse was the policy on fully integrating the combat units, and now we're talking about the raft.&nbsp; This is something that I argued the last time I was on your show.&nbsp; This is one of the primary reasons that we have public debate before we subject our young women to the draft before removing policy that was the only thing standing between women and the draft. (2:38)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham</strong>: But, Jude, aren't the generals afraid to speak out now too?&nbsp; So, when you say I'm going to listen to the generals, that doesn't really tell me anything. (4:50)</p>
<p><strong>Eden:</strong> Somewhat. They should look at Gen. Dunford, but I'm very disappointed in Neller, as a lot of Marines are and high-ranking Marines are.&nbsp; They should be standing up for the Marine Corp, for the military in general.&nbsp; Now we have to turn around this huge ship, we have to turn around the Titanic.&nbsp; They're terrified of being accused of war on women even though, as I have written many columns - I've written a book's worth of stuff - on any given aspect of the women in combat issue. The facts are all on the side of maintaining the combat exemption for women. They could make the argument, if they wanted to, but they are so afraid of that label, except for Cruz, that they're not willing to just make the argument, make the case. The case can be made and it can be made relatively easy to the American people because the American people understand that even though feminists want to tell us that men are interchangeable with women, it just ain't so. (4:58)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>What do you say to the people that say maybe there are not many women that could meet the standard, especially when the pull-ups and push-ups and so forth are concerned for the special forces, but the ones who do, they should be in it? (7:25)</p>
<p><strong>Eden:</strong> No, not at all.&nbsp; Because, first of all, we have to break hundreds to get those two who can pass and maintain men's minimum standards.&nbsp; There's no data backing up the idea that women are consistently making men's standards, men's minimum standards, women still, even if they can do three pull-ups, that's the men's minimum, the woman's maximum is not 20 pull-ups it's 8 pull-ups.&nbsp; A guy who can only do 3 pull-ups is considered a dirt-bag, a slacker, and is expected to improve or get out or he's not a part of that unit for very long.&nbsp; Just because, like I said, a couple women can make it, we still have the problem of sex, pregnancy, assault, at a much more added expense to accommodate women's needs.&nbsp; I mean these are all huge factors, they're expensive.&nbsp; We tolerate the expense, the disruption of sexual dynamics.&nbsp; We tolerate that in the support units that are all co-ed and dealing with it and it's a mess that they're dealing with, and it's an expensive mess.&nbsp; But, that is no reason we should impose that on the combat units.&nbsp; It's going to be life and death for them. It might be merely destructive and expensive for support units, it's going to be catastrophic for the infantry units. &nbsp;(7:42)</p>
</div>
</span> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Female-Combat-Vet-Warns-Against-Women-in-Combat/542435523818884086.htmlStaff2016-02-10T17:01:00ZChristie: Rubio Not for Enforcing Immigration Law, Will 'Run Right Back' to AmnestyStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Christie:-Rubio-Not-for-Enforcing-Immigration-Law,-Will-Run-Right-Back-to-Amnesty/870575718459577619.html2016-02-08T18:25:00Z2016-02-08T18:25:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><span dir="ltr">
<p>Today on <em>The Laura Ingraham Show,</em> Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) continued to blast his opponent Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL). He addressed Rubio&rsquo;s sponsorship of the Gang of 8 Schumer-Rubio bill, predicting &ldquo;he&rsquo;ll run right back to it if he&rsquo;s elected President or the United States because his big donors, that&rsquo;s what they want.&rdquo; Although Rubio <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/268525-rubio-defends-gang-of-eight-immigration-bill" target="_blank">claims </a>he is for enforcing the law, Christie disagreed, saying Rubio is &ldquo;not for enforcing the law and there&rsquo;s nothing in his record that proves he is.&rdquo; Christie then contrasted his immigration views with Rubio, saying the first thing he would do as president, &ldquo;is get rid of all these executive orders that fund and have funded all of this illegal immigration activity and supported his de facto amnesty program.&rdquo; He also reiterated the importance of enforcing immigration laws, specifically E-Verify to prevent businesses from hiring illegal immigrants.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The New Jersey governor also responded to concerns that his attacks on Rubio make him look like a bully, claiming, &ldquo; if holding somebody accountable for whether they&rsquo;re prepared or not to be President of the United States is inappropriate, than we might as well cancel campaigns.&rdquo; He continued, suggesting if Rubio is unable to handle attacks from fellow GOP candidates, he will not do well against Hillary Clinton in November. Ultimately, Christie explained, the attacks are critical as, &ldquo;when the heat was on, you see who&rsquo;s prepared to be president and who isn&rsquo;t.&rdquo;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<div style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;">Partial Transcript [<a href="/b/Christie:-Rubio-Not-for-Enforcing-Immigration-Law,-Will-Run-Right-Back-to-Amnesty/-162086117632831674.html" target="_blank"><strong>LISTEN</strong></a>]</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0; border-style: none;">
<p><strong>Christie: </strong>First off, if holding somebody accountable for whether they&rsquo;re prepared or not to be President of the United States is inappropriate, than we might as well cancel campaigns. The fact is that, if he thinks that&rsquo;s bad, wait until he gets on the stage against Hillary Clinton in November. Wait until he has to sit across from Vladmir Putin or any of the other challenges that we have in the world. I mean, fact is, he&rsquo;s been handled. And, that was my point all week, that when the pressure really came on, when the heat was on, you see who&rsquo;s prepared to be president and who isn&rsquo;t. The American people can&rsquo;t put up with another number of years of an unprepared president like we&rsquo;ve had the past 7 years. &nbsp;(2:10)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Why don&rsquo;t the donors go back to their original favorite, and that was Jeb Bush? He was the guy who raised the most money, then his star fell. Like you, everyone said he had a great debate performance. So, how do you box with both people at the same time? You throw Kasich in for good measure. How do you beat Jeb in New Hampshire? (4:14)</p>
<p><strong>Christie: </strong>Well, I just don't think there is a level of excitement or enthusiasm for Jeb Bush here in New Hampshire. Haven&rsquo;t noted it, haven&rsquo;t seen it, and I&rsquo;ve been here more than anybody - 71 days. So, I just think on the ground, we have a better ground game and we have a better message. We&rsquo;ve worked hard, we&rsquo;ve faced challenges and crises that Gov. Bush hasn&rsquo;t faced for more than a decade. And, he's just not the right person in these difficult times. We need a fighter in the oval office to fight for the middle class, to fight for the folks whose wages are going backwards. Those folks are angry and upset and what we need is to have somebody who actually knows how to get this job done and will give some relief to taxpayers and hardworking folks who have seen their wages go backward under Barack Obama. (4:34)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>For the people who are listening all across New Hampshire at our various stations in New Hampshire, how does your position on immigration differ from Marco Rubio&rsquo;s? (5:20)</p>
<p><strong>Christie: </strong>Well, first of all, Marco Rubio wrote the amnesty bill with Chuck Schumer and then ran away from it. Mine is very clear, and I said this on your show a week or so ago. I&rsquo;m for enforcing the law. We need to enforce the law. (5:30)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Marco says he&rsquo;s for enforcing the law too, Governor. He says, I&rsquo;m for enforcing the law and what we have now is de facto amnesty. &nbsp;(5:44)</p>
<p><strong>Christie: </strong>The problem is, he&rsquo;s not for enforcing the law and there&rsquo;s nothing in his record that proves he is. in fact, what&rsquo;s in his record is that he signed on for an amnesty bill that would allow for legalization and citizenship for people who came here illegally. And, he ran away from it as soon as the heat got hot. But, you can be sure he&rsquo;ll run right back to it if he&rsquo;s elected President or the United States because his big donors, that&rsquo;s what they want. And, it&rsquo;s not what&rsquo;s right for the country, it&rsquo;s not what the American people want. (5:52)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>There&rsquo;s a sense that the America we love is slipping away. What is the first thing you would do to rebuild that belief in the American dream for the native born Americans in this country? (6:52)</p>
<p><strong>Christie: </strong>The first thing I would do is get rid of all these executive orders that fund and have funded all of this illegal immigration activity and supported his de facto amnesty program. We would get rid of that. The next thing we would do is to make sure that we set up a tax system in this country that is going to be fair to average Americans. Right now, the tax code is rigged for the rich and the hardworking taxpayers in this country get no breaks. Third, we would not sign these crazy trade deals. All they do, and Barack Obama negotiated them, is send jobs offshore and hurt American workers. Fourth, I would enforce the law on immigration to make sure Americans got these jobs and not people who were willing to work for significantly less. Business is a big part of the problem here, and we need to make sure we hold them to the law - use E-verify, don&rsquo;t hire illegal immigrants. (6:59)</p>
</div>
</span> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Christie:-Rubio-Not-for-Enforcing-Immigration-Law,-Will-Run-Right-Back-to-Amnesty/870575718459577619.htmlStaff2016-02-08T18:25:00ZMorris: GOP Will Not Nominate RubioStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Morris:-GOP-Will-Not-Nominate-Rubio/149870929864759687.html2016-02-04T17:51:00Z2016-02-04T17:51:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><span dir="ltr">
<p>On today&rsquo;s program, Dick Morris, long time political strategist, predicted, &ldquo;This Republican electorate will not nominate somebody who sponsored the Gang of 8 bill.&rdquo; Morris was referring to Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) whose sponsorship of the amnesty bill has been his &ldquo;prime achievement&rdquo; in the Senate. Morris explained the issue of amnesty is a &ldquo;silver bullet&rdquo; in this cycle, an issue that will essentially determine the outcome. Right now, Morris said, &ldquo;Rubio is on the chair because Fox News is helping him and the media as a whole wants him as an alternative to Trump and Cruz.&rdquo; However, he predicts Rubio is going to &ldquo;again and again going to be hitting up against that ceiling,&rdquo; despite positive attention from the media. Ultimately, Morris predicted Rubio&rsquo;s record in the Senate, &ldquo;makes it impossible for him to win this nomination.&rdquo;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<div style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;">Partial Transcript [<a href="/b/Dick-Morris:-The-way-Hillary-has-been-influence-by-Goldman-Sachs/-224595576483430972.html" target="_blank"><strong>LISTEN</strong></a>]</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0; border-style: none;">
<p><strong>Morris: </strong>When it comes to strategy, there is a hard basic fact. This Republican electorate will not nominate somebody who sponsored the Gang of 8 bill. They simply will not do it. And, no matter how you can obfuscate it or cloud it up, amnesty is such a pivotal issue with the Republican electorate, because they see it as the key to winning the next ten years of elections, that the Democrats could win them if they can add 11 million Democratic voters to the rolls. And, Rubio&rsquo;s support of that bill and his outspoken advocacy is his prime achievement in the Senate really, when you look at his record, I think makes it impossible for him to win this nomination. (3:51)</p>
<p><strong>Morris:</strong> The fact of the amnesty bill just sticks in the craw. It&rsquo;s very rare that you get a silver bullet these days, which really decides the election. And, the reason it&rsquo;s so important with Republican primary voters is that they fully understand that if this got passed this election and the next one and the next one would not be competitive. And, we wouldn&rsquo;t have a prayer of winning that election. And, with the country at stake you can&rsquo;t simply give it away by granting these kinds of rights to people who came here by breaking our laws. And, that&rsquo;s just one of those immutable facts. The media loves to over image and tactics because it&rsquo;s the daily news cycle. But, ultimately through speeches and paid media and debates, you really come up against the fundamental facts. Right now, for example, Rubio is on the chair because Fox News is helping him and the media as a whole wants him as an alternative to Trump and Cruz. So, he&rsquo;ll go into the debate Saturday night with a great deal of momentum. And, then, he&rsquo;ll hit the Gang of 8. (5:17)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Who&rsquo;s going to ask him about the Gang of 8? (6:29)</p>
<p><strong>Morris: </strong>Cruz. And, he&rsquo;s going to hit a wall. &nbsp;(6:32)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>He&rsquo;s going to go back and say, but you wanted to triple the number of H-1B workers, which most Americans are against. (6:40)</p>
<p><strong>Morris: </strong>Well, yes, we can go back and forth as to what Cruz meant or didn&rsquo;t mean. But, the Gang of 8 bill, the Rubio-Schumer bill was the most important issue there was. And, it&rsquo;s hard to muddy that. It&rsquo;s the fundamental issue of, should 11 million people people be given citizenship and a path to voting? And, that remains there and it&rsquo;s not easy to muddle that. It&rsquo;s very easy to clarify it, and Cruz is very effective at that in the debate. Rubio is again and again going to be hitting up against that ceiling. (6:45)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Can I ask you a question about tactics as well? You&rsquo;re a strategist, you&rsquo;ve run campaigns. For the purposes of NH, I have argued Trump and Cruz should form &nbsp;basic, temporary ceasefire and focus all of their energy on taking out Rubio. That they shouldn't be shooting at each other for a variety of reasons, but they shouldn't be shooting at each other in Iowa, that&rsquo;s just ridiculous. Iowa, all the other things, he&rsquo;s not likeable, he&rsquo;s a bloviator. And, focus on the bipartisan, Establishment failure on immigration, led by Rubio, trade, tax policy, health care, failure to stand up to Obama&rsquo;s obscene budgets. And, just focus it all on the guy who, frankly, did nothing except for this amnesty bill.Instead, they&rsquo;re shooting at each other and I think that leaves an open lane for Rubio to drive right down. (7:21)</p>
<p><strong>Morris: </strong>Yeah, but Trump is Trump-centric. &nbsp;(8:13)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>I&rsquo;m not arguing about whether or not he&rsquo;s going to do it. Don&rsquo;t you think that&rsquo;s smarter for both of them? Don&rsquo;t you think Rubio is the real challenger here? Rubio&rsquo;s the challenger to the view of &lsquo;we&rsquo;ve got to turn Washington upside down.&rsquo; Rubio is the main obstacle to that. (8:24)</p>
<p><strong>Morris: </strong>Well, there&rsquo;s going to be a challenge. There&rsquo;s a hold with 30% of the vote, and it&rsquo;s going to get filled by somebody. If it isn&rsquo;t Rubio, it would be Kasich or even Bush. And, Rubio is the current flavor of the month to fill that. But, I think that Trump has a limited half life. I think that he can go to the well only so often. (8:40)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>You&rsquo;re making my point, Dick. We get that you don&rsquo;t like Trump, but you&rsquo;re making my point. If Trump&rsquo;s not really the obstacle, then why would Cruz not go right at Rubio on every issue they disagree? Why waste any time on Donald Trump? Go right to Rubio. He has the money, he has the media backing, he has all these billionaires backing him. He is being pushed and pushed and pushed, morning, noon, and night as the fresh face, the young face. He&rsquo;s the future, he can unify, and this angry unlikeable Ted Cruz is out there and he&rsquo;s just a hateful divider. So, that is the narrative that&rsquo;s going to go into South Carolina, Florida, and beyond. Meanwhile, they&rsquo;re talking about each other, Trump and Cruz. I just don&rsquo;t get that. (9:08)</p>
<p><strong>Morris: </strong>I think that makes some sense, Laura. (9:46)</p>
</div>
</span> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Morris:-GOP-Will-Not-Nominate-Rubio/149870929864759687.htmlStaff2016-02-04T17:51:00ZSteve Moore: Every Candidate Should Pledge No More BailoutsStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Steve-Moore:-Every-Candidate-Should-Pledge-No-More-Bailouts/445353140314216672.html2016-02-04T16:51:00Z2016-02-04T16:51:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><span dir="ltr">
<p>Yesterday, Bloomberg <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-01/goldman-sachs-employees-shift-to-rubio-as-bush-support-fades" target="_blank">reported</a> Goldman Sachs employees are shifting their support to Marco Rubio as Jeb Bush fades. On today&rsquo;s program, Heritage Foundation&rsquo;s Steve Moore said this transition &ldquo;could be a game changer&rdquo; as the vast majority is running from Bush. Moore predicts the $107,000 Rubio received from Goldman Sachs Group Inc. employees is just the beginning of a flood of financial support for the new Establishment sweetheart.</p>
Moore also said every Republican candidate should pledge to never bail out a private company, claiming &ldquo;bailout should be stricken from the Republican vocabulary.&rdquo; He suggested, &ldquo;the big problem for Republicans in sealing the deal with voters is what happened in 2008 with these massive bailouts.&rdquo; Pledging not to repeat these mistakes, Moore said, would put GOP voters across the country at ease.
<div style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;"><br />[<a href="/b/Steve-Moore:-Every-Candidate-Should-Pledge-No-More-Bailouts/-987356912975038179.html" target="_blank"><strong>LISTEN</strong></a>]</span></span></div>
<br /> </span> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Steve-Moore:-Every-Candidate-Should-Pledge-No-More-Bailouts/445353140314216672.htmlStaff2016-02-04T16:51:00ZFalwell: Drawn to Trump's Financial Acumen, Not ReligiosityStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Falwell:-Drawn-to-Trumps-Financial-Acumen,-Not-Religiosity/-582588321651176253.html2016-02-04T14:28:00Z2016-02-04T14:28:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><span dir="ltr">
<p>On today&rsquo;s program, Jerry Falwell Jr., president of Liberty University, discussed his decision to endorse Donald Trump, rather than the more outwardly Christian candidates, such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL). Falwell, however, said he is drawn to Trump&rsquo;s financial acumen, economic smarts, and &ldquo;turn the table over in Washington&rdquo; approach and, for those reasons, endorsed the billionaire over the candidates who are more familiar with Christian doctrine.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Ingraham noted, &ldquo;There are a lot of people who justify open borders as a religious obligation. That anyone who comes here, and makes it here, should be able to stay here. And, anyone who wants to come here should be able to come here.&rdquo; Falwell reacted to this belief, claiming anyone who uses their faith as an &ldquo;excuse&rdquo; to support open borders is preaching a &ldquo;perversion of what Christ taught.&rdquo; Falwell explained, &ldquo; I think Christ taught that the government is to make decisions like that, decisions that are best for the government. And, it&rsquo;s our job to choose the best government leaders.&rdquo;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<div style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;">Partial Transcript [<a href="/b/Falwell:-Drawn-to-Trumps-Financial-Acumen,-Not-Religiosity/-41217964722212133.html" target="_blank"><strong>LISTEN</strong></a>]</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0; border-style: none;">
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>There are all these other candidates - Cruz, Rubio - both very faithful Christians. Rubio&rsquo;s a Catholic and Cruz is an Evangelical. There&rsquo;s more fluidity with Bible verses, more fluidity with Christian doctrine, perhaps. But, you&rsquo;re saying, it&rsquo;s his financial acumen, it&rsquo;s his economic smarts, it&rsquo;s his turn the table over in Washington, root out the DC corruption approach that is garnering your support. Am I stating that correctly? (7:44)</p>
<p><strong>Falwell: </strong>That&rsquo;s correct. (8:16)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>There are a lot of people who justify open borders as a religious obligation. That anyone who comes here, and makes it here, should be able to stay here. And, anyone who wants to come here should be able to come here. There are a lot of people who think it&rsquo;s our moral and Christian duty to send all our boys over to the Middle East to enforce other people&rsquo;s borders, but our borders have to be as porous as is necessary for big business or to make, whether it&rsquo;s the Catholic bishops or the Evangelical super pastors or whatever, happy. So, that is considered a moral obligation, and I understand that. But, let me just say, it is an absolute disaster for our economy, our budget deficit, and for our jobs, for native born Americans. We owe them an obligation as well. &nbsp;(10:30)</p>
<p><strong>Falwell: </strong>If people are using their faith as an excuse to say we should open our borders, then it&rsquo;s a perversion of what Christ taught. I think Christ taught that the government is to make decisions like that, decisions that are best for the government. And, it&rsquo;s our job to choose the best government leaders. &nbsp;(11:43)</p>
</div>
</span> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Falwell:-Drawn-to-Trumps-Financial-Acumen,-Not-Religiosity/-582588321651176253.htmlStaff2016-02-04T14:28:00ZCosta: Trump, Cruz Attacks Created Rubio's RiseStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Costa:-Trump,-Cruz-Attacks-Created-Rubios-Rise/713587467123514001.html2016-02-02T17:31:00Z2016-02-02T17:31:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><span dir="ltr">
<p>On today&rsquo;s program, Bob Costa, national political reporter at the Washington Post, discussed the outcome of last night&rsquo;s Iowa caucus. Cruz&rsquo; win, he explained, proved Cruz&rsquo;s &ldquo;was for real, that this is someone who has the data analytics and network of relationships, especially around Evangelicals, that was a powerful force.&rdquo; However, he also dismissed claims that Trump&rsquo;s loss in Iowa signals the end of the billionaire&rsquo;s campaign. Instead, Costa agreed with Ingraham, saying although Trump fell behind Cruz, Iowa was not a state favorable to Trump in the first place. Further, Costa pointed to Trump&rsquo;s recent attacks on Cruz in Iowa - the Goldman Sachs loan, his Canadian birth, concerns over his reputation - and argued although Trump did not win the caucus, he left Cruz with &ldquo;a lot of looming questions&rdquo; heading into New Hampshire.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Costa also addressed the Establishment candidates, saying, &ldquo;We&rsquo;re seeing Rubio really becoming the Establishment favorite.&rdquo; Although the other three candidates - Kasich, Christie, and Bush - still have some popularity in New Hampshire, Costa said, there is a &ldquo;sense that there was a time and a place for Rubio in the mind of the Establishment to take on Cruz and Trump.&rdquo; And, he continued, if these three candidates are unable to cut Rubio out of the race in New Hampshire, the race will be over for them. Costa also agreed with Ingraham, noting Trump and Cruz&rsquo;s shattered alliance &ldquo;really created an opportunity for Rubio to rise.&rdquo; &ldquo;The Establishment loves that Trump and Cruz are going after each other,&rdquo; he explained, &ldquo;It gives Rubio a lane, or chance for Kasich or someone else to get in.&rdquo;</p>
<div style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;">Partial Transcript [<a href="/b/Costa:-Trump,-Cruz-Attacks-Created-Rubios-Rise/-827515296307307377.html" target="_blank"><strong>LISTEN</strong></a>]</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0; border-style: none;">
<p><strong>Costa: </strong>What we saw last night essentially from Cruz was his organization was for real, that this is someone who has the data analytics and network of relationships, especially around Evangelicals, that was a powerful force. If Trump is going to win in new Hampshire, where he&rsquo;s been for a long time, he&rsquo;s going to have to close that gap on the ground in a way he did not in Iowa. We&rsquo;re seeing Rubio really becoming the Establishment favorite; Kasich, Christie, and Bush still have some popularity here in New Hampshire, but when I was in Iowa going around on caucus sites, there was a sense that there was a time and a place for Rubio in the mind of the Establishment to take on Cruz and Trump. (3:28)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Before everybody starts to pile on this, oh, Trump really blew it in Iowa. Let&rsquo;s put some perspective into this conversation. He still had more voters than anyone in the Republican Iowa caucus history, other than Ted Cruz. He brought out a huge chunk of the immigration issue crowd, first time voters, and early voters. Okay, so, he had very strong support. Did he win? No, he didn&rsquo;t. But, given what Iowa is like and how little time he spent in Iowa, he actually did pretty well. People say, Trump, there&rsquo;s nothing there. I think that&rsquo;s a facile analysis. (4:08)</p>
<p><strong>Costa: </strong>I agree with you. If you look at Trump&rsquo;s operation, you can say, was he behind Cruz, sure. But, this was not a state that was ever favorable to Trump. He only decided to really play in Iowa in the final few weeks and it was not as if that was natural for him. This is someone who is religious to a point and any other politician in Trump&rsquo;s position would have played in New Hampshire and South Carolina, those were where he was leading. And, Trump was really able to get some blows in on Cruz. As much as Cruz winning Iowa was big for Cruz, January was very difficult for him You saw his concerns about his reputation really came to the floor, the Goldman Sachs loan, his Canadian birth. I mean, Cruz moves forward with a win under his belt but also with a lot of looming questions. &nbsp;(5:04)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>They have to make a decision now. Do they want to keep savaging each other and basically give it to Rubio? Or, do they in some respect, work together, to stop this momentum that&rsquo;s going to be fueled by, and in part created by, the media Establishment and the political Establishment for Rubio. You can react to that. (5:57)</p>
<p><strong>Costa: </strong>It&rsquo;s an important question, Laura. And, we see Trump, he laid off Rubio for the past few weeks. His attacks were directed at Senator Cruz and you saw, by not being relentless in how he went after Senator Rubio, he really created an opportunity for Rubio to rise. The Establishment loves that Trump and Cruz are going after each other. It gives Rubio a lane, or chance for Kasich or someone else to get in. (7:13)</p>
<p><strong>Costa: </strong>It was stunning. Bush was trying to get some kind of edge in Iowa and was so soundly defeated. You see none of Bush&rsquo;s attacks have had any impact on Rubio. He was supposed to cut Rubio apart, if anything that was the intent of the Bush attack campaign against him in Iowa, and now Bush enters New Hampshire so humbled, with hardly a clear base. Kasich and Christie have a stronger momentum here in New Hampshire, you can just see it in the ground. And, this is a challenge for Bush. He has a Super PAC that has all this money, but there&rsquo;s no real path for him at the moment. After all that money and time, to only get a couple percentages in Iowa? Wow. &nbsp;(9:03)</p>
<p><strong>Costa: </strong>This is it for Christie, and for Kasich, and for Bush. This is the week they&rsquo;ve been waiting for for an entire year in New Hampshire, the place where a center right candidate, in their mind, would find some sea legs and get into this race. If they can&rsquo;t cut Rubio out now, the race is likely over for them. This is the place for them to come back. That&rsquo;s why there's this urgency and the need to go after Rubio. (11:11)</p>
</div>
</span> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Costa:-Trump,-Cruz-Attacks-Created-Rubios-Rise/713587467123514001.htmlStaff2016-02-02T17:31:00ZChristie: Rubio Not Appealing or Uniting for the PartyStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Christie:-Rubio-Not-Appealing-or-Uniting-for-the-Party/-513770068251617092.html2016-02-02T15:52:00Z2016-02-02T15:52:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><span dir="ltr">
<p>Today on <em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) slammed the Establishment sweetheart, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), claiming &ldquo;the mainstream media folks are always looking to end these races and anoint people well before there should be any kind of decision on that.&rdquo; According to Christie, Marco&rsquo;s inexperience and track-record on immigration are not appealing to the Republican Party. The New Jersey governor explained, Marco has &ldquo;run a 30 person Senate staff and he&rsquo;s barely showed up to do that.&rdquo;&nbsp;</p>
<p>Rubio&rsquo;s pitch to the American people centers on the belief he will both be conservative, but also reach new voters. However, Christie said, Rubio is going to have to address what he was doing &ldquo;standing there with Chuck Schumer being the lead Republican sponsor on a bill that gave amnesty to people who are here illegally.&rdquo; Further, Christie noted Rubio&rsquo;s 2010 campaign promise not to push amnesty down the throats of the American people. He argued, Rubio&rsquo;s decision to sponsor the Schumer-Rubio bill, directly contradicting his promise to the people of Florida, &ldquo;is not something that is going to be greatly appealing or uniting for our party.&rdquo;&nbsp;</p>
<p>Christie also questioned the media&rsquo;s praising of Rubio&rsquo;s success in Iowa, which the governor did not find particularly impressive. He challenged the media, asking, &ldquo;[Rubio] spent $5 million more than Ted Cruz to come in third? And, that&rsquo;s some kind of triumph? I don&rsquo;t see it.&rdquo;</p>
<div style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;">Partial Transcript [<a href="/b/Christie:-Rubio-Not-Appealing-or-Uniting-for-the-Party/429468781075177339.html" target="_blank"><strong>LISTEN</strong></a>]</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0; border-style: none;">
<p><strong>Christie: </strong>Well, listen, you know, the main stream media folks are always looking to end these races and anoint people well before there should be any kind of decision on that. And, quite frankly, Marco Rubio has never won a thing in his life. This guy has run a 30 person Senate staff and he&rsquo;s barely showed up to do that. I mean, this isn&rsquo;t a guy who has just stopped showing up for votes since he&rsquo;s running for president. He didn&rsquo;t show up for votes before that. And, so, why we would ever turn over our party and our government to a first term United States senator, like the Democrats did seven years ago, is beyond me. Why the rush to all this? Because Marco Rubio came in third last night? He spent $5 million more than Ted Cruz to come in third? And, that&rsquo;s some kind of triumph? I don&rsquo;t know. I don&rsquo;t see it. From our perspective, things are going to change significantly up here in New Hampshire a week from today. &nbsp;(1:01)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Rubio this morning, on Fox, said he is the best person to unite the party. He described himself as a mainstream conservative, he&rsquo;s as conservative as anyone in the race, and the party will both be conservative and build and grow out new voters with a Rubio on the ticket. That&rsquo;s going to be his pitch as well in New Hampshire. &nbsp;(1:56)</p>
<p><strong>Christie: </strong>Listen, he can pitch that, but here&rsquo;s the other thing he needs to answer is, what was he doing standing there with Chuck Schumer being the lead Republican sponsor on a bill that gave amnesty to people who are here illegally after he ran for the Senate in 2010 and said he would never do that. And, then, as soon as it got hot, he ran away. That&rsquo;s not leadership. And, that&rsquo;s certainly not going to unite our party. I don&rsquo;t think anyone who feels strongly about the immigration issue is going to be running to join the Marco Rubio camp. And, any 60 second pre-memorized speech from Marco to try to distract people, from that simple fact that he decided to be the sponsor of amnesty in the United States Senate, exactly opposite of what he told the people of Florida he would do is not something that is going to be greatly appealing or uniting for our party. (2:18)</p>
</div>
</span> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Christie:-Rubio-Not-Appealing-or-Uniting-for-the-Party/-513770068251617092.htmlStaff2016-02-02T15:52:00ZRubio "Not A Conservative In Any Way, Shape, Or Form"Staffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Rubio-Not-A-Conservative-In-Any-Way,-Shape,-Or-Form/-788533024063842883.html2016-02-01T18:56:00Z2016-02-01T18:56:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><span dir="ltr">
<div style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;">Today on </span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;"><em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em></span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;">, Sam Clovis, Donald </span></span><span style="color: #444444; font-family: Arial;">Trump's chief policy adviser, reacted to claims by National Review&rsquo;s Ramesh Ponnuru and Rich Lowry that Trump should not be the choice for the Republican Party. The two &ldquo;big government conservatives,&rdquo; suggested, if Trump could lose badly this year, the GOP would, Ingraham explained, &ldquo;</span><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;">get the benefit of a worthwhile readjustment without risking the abandonment of important principles or suffering a potentially Goldwater-esque, liberal landslide.&rdquo; Clovis responded, &ldquo;They&rsquo;re delusional.&rdquo; He elaborated, explaining, &ldquo;This is absolutely a panic on the part of the Establishment of the Republican Party...We have people who are afraid of the fact that their power base inside the beltway is going to have a t</span></span><span style="color: #263238; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;">ectonic plate shift </span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;">on the 20th of January in 2017 when Donald J. Trump raises his hand to take the oath of office.&rdquo; Specifically, Clovis pointed to the Establishment sweetheart, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who he says is &ldquo;not a conservative in any way, shape, or form.&rdquo; Trump&rsquo;s adviser argued the billionaire is much more conservative than the Florida senator.</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;">According to Clovis, Donald Trump &ldquo;has the personality, the will, the courage, the strength, the leadership, the stand up to represent all of us, all of the people out here who are angry, who feel disenfranchised, who feel abandoned on the field,&rdquo; qualities the American people have been searching for to carry on the legacy of Ronald Reagan. Clovis predicted Trump will have a &ldquo;big night&rdquo; in Iowa tonight, followed by victories in South Carolina, Nevada, and across the Southeast, concluding Trump&rsquo;s candidacy, &ldquo;is a movement in this country that we haven&rsquo;t seen in a long, long time.&rdquo;</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;">Partial Transcript [<a href="/b/Sam-Clovis:-Rubio-Not-A-Conservative-In-Any-Way,-Shape,-Or-Form/696961485956471443.html" target="_blank"><strong>LISTEN</strong></a>]</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;">***</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0; border-style: none;">
<div style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;"><strong>Ingraham:</strong></span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;"> I want to read something to you, this was written by the folks at National Review who have taken it upon themselves to warn the world on Trump. Ramesh Ponnuru and Rich Lowry. They basically say Trump is not a conservative, he&rsquo;s not ideological, his temperament is caricature, his experience for many reasons indicate he should not be the choice for the Republican Party.&nbsp; You can never trust him when he gets into office to stand by his word. But, they end their piece saying this: maybe Trump, if he could lose badly this year, and give rise to a future GOP that takes enforcement of immigration law seriously, reduces low skilled immigration, and does more to represent the less skilled wage earner, while also rejecting fantasies of mass deportation. He said, this way the party would get the benefit of a worthwhile readjustment without risking the abandonment of important principles or suffering a potentially Goldwater-esque, liberal landslide. Sam, your response to Rich and Ramesh. (2:30)</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;"><strong>Clovis: </strong></span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;">I think that they&rsquo;re delusional. I would say that to their faces. This is absolutely a panic on the part of the Establishment of the Republican Party. It is impossible to use the word conservative and big government in the same sentence, but Ramesh and Rich are both big government conservatives. And, this is where they laid down. They&rsquo;re all in for Rubio and Rubio&rsquo;s not a conservative in any way, shape, or form. I think this goes right to the heart of the problem. They want us, this is where we get Nikki Haley&rsquo;s speech...I&rsquo;m going to get fired up here a little bit. This is the issue we have, we have people today who are out here to pat us on the head and say okay, we got it, we hear you, don&rsquo;t be angry, go sit in the corner. We&rsquo;ve been waiting thirty years for somebody to come along and carry on the legacy of Ronald Reagan, and it hasn&rsquo;t happened. Now we have someone who has the personality, the will, the courage, the strength, the leadership, the stand up to represent all of us, all of the people out here who are angry, who feel disenfranchised, who feel abandoned on the field. We now have a champion. And, I think we&rsquo;re going to push that champion over the finish line. And, the rest of these guys need to re-erect their gyros, so they can get on the team. Or, they&rsquo;re going to get run over because we&rsquo;re going to see the new Republican party come out of this, one way or the other. </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong></span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;">They argue that missing from Trump&rsquo;s policies and his rhetoric is any interest in freeing markets or reducing the federal government to something closer to its proper, constitutional dimensions. That&rsquo;s a repeated refrain we hear from the National Review crowd, and many others, who say, look, he&rsquo;s not a conservative in any way, how is he conservative? And, he could get into office and he&rsquo;s apt to just go bananas because someone personally insults him and get us into a thermonuclear war, for goodness sakes. This is the kind of thing I&rsquo;m hearing about trump. That once he gets into office he&rsquo;s likely to do anything. &nbsp;(5:05)</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 10pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;"><strong>Clovis: </strong></span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;">Let&rsquo;s talk about the four legs of the conservative stool. Let&rsquo;s talk about smaller government. Mr. Trump has announced repeatedly he will bring the power of the executive branch back inside the Constitution. Fiscal conservatism. He&rsquo;s the only person with a pro-growth ability in our tax plan, our trade policies. We have a plan to reduce the debt, not deficit, the debt of this nation. Let&rsquo;s think about national security. He&rsquo;s strong on national security. He&rsquo;s made it clear we&rsquo;re going to build partnerships around the world. We have that ability. That&rsquo;s as conservative as the day is long. He&rsquo;s pro-life and he&rsquo;s pro-marriage. I don&rsquo;t know what else we need to do. He&rsquo;s more conservative than Marco Rubio, just by the whole fact that we have this. I think what's going on is we have people who are afraid of the fact that their power base inside the beltway is going to have a t</span></span><span style="color: #263238; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;">ectonic plate shift </span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;">on the 20th of January in 2017 when Donald J. Trump raises his hand to take the oath of office. &nbsp;(6:00)</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 10pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;"><strong>Clovis: </strong></span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;">Look at how we&rsquo;ve expanded the voter base. We&rsquo;re going to see evidence of that tonight. Anybody who&rsquo;s ever been to a Republican rally in Iowa knows most of the time you see middle aged white people there. You go to a Trump rally, you see people of every color, every race, every creed, every socioeconomic status, every age. It&rsquo;s like going into a rock concert. And, it is just unbelievable. And, if you think people are going to stand for five hours in subzero, not subfreezing, subzero weather to get in and they&rsquo;re not going to show up on caucus night, I think you&rsquo;ve got another thing coming. I think we&rsquo;re going to have a big night, and I&rsquo;m excited about it. I&rsquo;m really looking forward to it. And, I will tell you, it&rsquo;ll make it a lot easier to get up in the morning and get on a plane to New Hampshire because once we win Iowa, we&rsquo;re going to win new Hampshire, we&rsquo;re going to win South Carolina, we&rsquo;re going to win Nevada, and we&rsquo;re going to sweet he Southeast primaries. This is where we&rsquo;re headed. This is a movement, Laura, a movement in this country that we haven&rsquo;t seen in a long, long time. (8:02)</span></span></div>
</div>
</span> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Rubio-Not-A-Conservative-In-Any-Way,-Shape,-Or-Form/-788533024063842883.htmlStaff2016-02-01T18:56:00ZCulberson "Aggressively" Working to Cut Off Funding to Sanctuary CitiesStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Culberson-Aggressively-Working-to-Cut-Off-Funding-to-Sanctuary-Cities/152779876042703225.html2016-02-01T18:25:00Z2016-02-01T18:25:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><span dir="ltr">
<div style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-size: 12.79px;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;">Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas), chairman of the House subcommittee in charge of Justice Department funding, has targeted the over </span></span><a href="http://cis.org/Sanctuary-Cities-Map" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">300 sanctuary cities</span></span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;"> across the nation, issuing a new rule: if an agency wants federal law enforcement funds, they must actually enforce federal law.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-size: 12.79px;">&nbsp;</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-size: 12.79px;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;">Culberson sent </span></span><a href="http://culberson.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Culberson_Letter_to_Attorney_General_Lynch.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">a letter</span></span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;"> today to Attorney General Loretta Lynch warning her to take steps against sanctuary jurisdictions or risk losing funding. As subcommittee chairman, Culberson has the authority, &ldquo;to disapprove of specific items in the Department of Justice&rsquo;s spending plan on a day-to-day basis, week by week.&rdquo; On today&rsquo;s program, he said he does not need a bill or an amendment to begin aggressively enforcing existing law, explaining, &ldquo;I have responsibility for oversight and I can disapprove of things in their spending plan.&rdquo;</span></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-size: 12.79px;"><br /> </span></span>
<div style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-size: 12.79px;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;">The newly appointed chairman </span></span><a href="http://culberson.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398387" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">outlined three steps</span></span></span></a><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;">he expects the DoJ to take, including working with sanctuary jurisdictions to change policies, taking legal action to compel their compliance, as well as to denying funding to non-compliant sanctuary jurisdictions.</span></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-size: 12.79px;"><br /> </span></span>
<div style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-size: 12.79px;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;">The chairman&rsquo;s counterpart in the U.S. Senate, Sen. Shelby (R-AL), supports the congressman&rsquo;s push to use the purse strings to crackdown on sanctuary cities. </span></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-size: 12.79px;"><br /> </span></span>
<div style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-size: 12.79px;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;">Partial Transcript </span></span><strong><a href="/b/Culberson-Aggressively-Working-to-Cut-Off-Funding-to-Sanctuary-Cities/-757598956932763058.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">[LISTEN]</span></span></span></a></strong></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-size: 12.79px;"><br /> </span></span>
<div style="text-align: center; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-size: 12.79px;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;">***</span></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-size: 12.79px;"><br /> </span></span>
<div style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0; border-style: none;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-size: 12.79px;">
<div style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 10pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;"><strong>Culberson: </strong></span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;">I don&rsquo;t need a bill, I don&rsquo;t need an amendment now that the appropriations bill is done. I&rsquo;m the new chairman of the law enforcement funding committee, Laura, and I&rsquo;m announcing today the new rule, as the new chairman, if you want local law enforcement agency wants federal law enforcement money, they have to enforce federal law or I&rsquo;ll do everything in my power to disqualify them. I have the authority, Laura, as a subcommittee chairman to disapprove of specific items in the Department of Justice&rsquo;s spending plan on a day-to-day basis, week by week. I have responsibility for oversight and I can disapprove of things in their spending plan, I can refuse their ability to move money around. This is how I got ATF to drop the ammo ban on .223 ammunition last spring, Laura. And, so, today I&rsquo;ve notified the Department of Justice that they need to immediately move to disqualify these three hundred sanctuary cities around the country so that they no longer receive federal law enforcement grant money, until they enforce federal law by changing their sanctuary policies to hand over criminal illegal aliens to federal authorities for deportation, or don&rsquo;t ask for federal money. That&rsquo;s the new rule from the new chairman. (1:32)</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 10pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong></span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;">And, how much support do you have among your fellow congressmen for this? (2:48)</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 10pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;"><strong>Culberson: </strong></span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: transparent;">I have tremendous support for it. And, again, this doesn&rsquo;t require a bill. There&rsquo;s no amendment. I can do this right now and that&rsquo;s what I&rsquo;m announcing today, with the help of my counterpart in the Senate, Sen. Shelby. We&rsquo;re going to aggressively enforce existing law and we can pressure the Department of Justice by denying them money for headquarters, cutting off money for things they want to do, without affecting the men and women in the field. We are going to aggressively push the Department of Justice to cut off funding so these sanctuary cities do not ask for federal law unless you enforce federal law. It&rsquo;s that simple.<br /></span></span></div>
</span></span></div>
</span> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Culberson-Aggressively-Working-to-Cut-Off-Funding-to-Sanctuary-Cities/152779876042703225.htmlStaff2016-02-01T18:25:00ZCarly: I'm Not Establishment, Closer to Trump/CruzStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Carly:-Im-Not-Establishment,-Closer-to-Trump/Cruz/763931450091731946.html2016-02-01T16:48:00Z2016-02-01T16:48:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on <em>The Laura Ingraham Show, </em>Ingraham checked in with Carly Fiorina, who is spending the final hours before the caucus in West Des Moines. Fiorina, who has routinely lashed out against Trump, admitted she agreed with Ingraham&rsquo;s hypothetical venn diagram, which placed Fiorina closer to Cruz and Trump than the Establishment candidates. As Iowans prepare to vote in tonight&rsquo;s caucus, Fiorina reminded them, &ldquo;I&rsquo;m not Establishment.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript:<strong> [<a href="/b/Fiorina:-Im-Not-Establishment,-Closer-to-Trump/Cruz/-713277756682971338.html" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>I&rsquo;m looking at your website right now, that&rsquo;s more populist than Establishment, for sure. And, I would think Cruz and Trump are, if there&rsquo;s a venn diagram, you&rsquo;re closer to that part of the venn diagram than you are the other side. That&rsquo;s a windy way of saying it. (14:38)</p>
<p><br /> <strong>Fiorina: </strong>No question. You&rsquo;re right. Look, people are fed up. And, they have a right to be. No, the polls aren&rsquo;t completely wrong, not at all. I&rsquo;m not Establishment, and I agree with your venn diagram. People are fed up. And, so, now what people have to really think through carefully is, who can do the job? What does it actually take to do this job? And, what I believe it takes to do the job is an understanding of how the economy works. I have more foreign policy experience than anyone running on our side. I have cut down big bureaucracy and that&rsquo;s why I know the only way to get this government bureaucracy under control is to get control of the money. I understand technology, I&rsquo;ve been in it all my life. It&rsquo;s important. And, I know what leadership is. (14:58)</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Carly:-Im-Not-Establishment,-Closer-to-Trump/Cruz/763931450091731946.htmlStaff2016-02-01T16:48:00ZRobinson: No Momentum for Rubio in IowaStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Robinson:-No-Momentum-for-Rubio-in-Iowa/-247086454631858001.html2016-02-01T16:26:00Z2016-02-01T16:26:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Craig Robinson, founder and editor-in-chief of the Iowa Republican and former Political Director of the Republican Party of Iowa , joined Ingraham to discuss the much anticipated Iowa caucus. Robinson addressed the Des Moines Register poll, released Saturday night, claiming, &ldquo;a lot of us were looking at the Des Moines poll coming out Saturday night looking for a sign of momentum from Rubio.&rdquo; Unfortunately for the Florida senator, however, Robinson pointed out &ldquo;He&rsquo;s stuck there. He has a ceiling at 15% that he can&rsquo;t break through.&rdquo;</p>
<p>The former political director also addressed the GOP&rsquo;s frontrunners, Trump and Cruz. Ingraham noted National Review&rsquo;s constant criticism of the billionaire&rsquo;s temperament, experience, and character. Robinson said, &ldquo;One thing I like about Ted Cruz and Donald Trump is that they both would restore this tension between the executive branch and Congress.&rdquo; He suggested Obama&rsquo;s presidency has tainted America&rsquo;s perception of the executive branch, reminding listeners there should be a &ldquo;healthy tension&rdquo; between the branches, which Trump and Cruz would provide.</p>
<p>Robinson also chimed in on Trump&rsquo;s decision to bypass last week&rsquo;s GOP debate, claiming the decision hurt Cruz the most. According to Robinson, skipping the debate was a smart move by Trump, but hurt Cruz, who &ldquo;needed that moment to paint the differences between him and Trump and he didn't get it.&rdquo; He also speculated, &ldquo;every candidate would have done that in [Trump&rsquo;s] position, looking back at it.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript:<strong> [<a href="/b/Robinson:-No-Momentum-for-Rubio-in-IA/-651659757555360115.html" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<p><strong>Robinson: </strong>I think a lot of us were looking at the Des Moines Register poll coming out Saturday night looking for a sign of momentum from Rubio. Yet, he&rsquo;s still stuck there. He has a ceiling at 15% that he can&rsquo;t break through. There was a lot of people thinking the Est was going to consolidate around him and break him through this and it become a three person race. Yet, all the polls we&rsquo;ve seen here have basically been the same. And, it feels kind of that way too. There&rsquo;s no momentum like there was for Rick Santorum in the final days of this caucus, for an outside challenger. So, that tells me, this is a Trump win tonight. (7:20)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham:</strong> &nbsp;National Review&rsquo;s real beef with Trump is that he is ideologically indifferent. They attack him on his character, his temperament, his experience. It&rsquo;s all about political expediency. He&rsquo;s not a serious person. He&rsquo;ll lose the general election, for sure, they are saying. What&rsquo;s your reaction to that? (12:07)</p>
<p><strong>Robinson: </strong>My reaction is it&rsquo;s a good thing he would be president, not king. The one thing I like about Ted Cruz and Donald Trump is that they both would restore this tension between the executive branch and Congress. I think it would be a good thing if Congress didn&rsquo;t necessarily just do whatever the president wants them to od. And so, they could restore some of that healthy tension that I think is necessary in this system of government. And so, I think we have it in our heads that presidents are like Obama, and whatever they want they&rsquo;re going to do by executive order. I think it would be good if the Republican congress would keep a Republican president in check. That&rsquo;s what I want. And, I think that&rsquo;s honestly what the American people want. So, articles like this make it out that whoever the Republican president is will get whatever they want. That&rsquo;s not our system of government. So, if they really were conservative, I think they would trust the system more. And, the checks and balances that are supposed to be there. &nbsp;(12:37)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>How much did Trump not being at the debate hurt Cruz? (15:16)</p>
<p><strong>Robinson: </strong>I actually think him not being at the debate hurt Cruz the most bc Cruz didn&rsquo;t have the opportunity to go on the offensive against him. He needed that moment to paint the differences between him and Trump and he didn't get it. Smart move by Trump. I think every candidate would have done that in that position, looking back at it. (15:20)</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Robinson:-No-Momentum-for-Rubio-in-Iowa/-247086454631858001.htmlStaff2016-02-01T16:26:00ZState Department Holds Hillary Emails Until After Primary, Blames Oversight on SnowstormStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/State-Department-Holds-Hillary-Emails-Until-After-Primary,-Blames-Oversight-on-Snowstorm/547677135608299262.html2016-01-29T17:00:00Z2016-01-29T17:00:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>As Bernie Sanders climbs in the polls, Hillary Clinton's 'email-gate' appears to be <a href="http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/267495-clintons-emails-to-be-released-as-thousands-more-are-delayed">on hold</a> until four primary states have cast their votes. Friday, the State Department released 2,000 pages of Clinton emails, regretting the &ldquo;inability to publish the final 7,000 pages&rdquo; in a court filing Thursday night.&nbsp; Among the excuses for the delay, a snowstorm that hit DC last week.</p>
<p>More significantly, however, is the State Department's claim that they missed sending 7,000 pages of emails to 12 different reviewing agencies due to an &lsquo;unnoticed oversight.&rsquo; Consequently, as the State Department points out, this compulsory delay was only furthered by the snowstorm.</p>
<p>Lawyers behind the probe for Hillary's emails said earlier this week that &ldquo;a substantial portion of the electorate will be forced to vote without the benefit of important information . . . about the performance of one of the candidates for U.S. President&rdquo;. Unmoved, however, the Department's lawyers responded, saying that the upcoming elections, &ldquo;Do not change the fact that State needs this reasonable amount of additional time to complete the final stage of this enormous and complex undertaking&rdquo;.</p>
<p>Of course, the Department of State's discretionary restraint in providing the remaining emails must not provoke assumptions of their incrimination or substance.&nbsp; Yet, it is suspiciously convenient for the Hillary campaign as they become more trepidatious with the success of Bernie Sanders.</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/State-Department-Holds-Hillary-Emails-Until-After-Primary,-Blames-Oversight-on-Snowstorm/547677135608299262.htmlStaff2016-01-29T17:00:00ZFiorina: 'I don't need to attend a Trump event to give to veterans'Staffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Fiorina:-I-dont-need-to-attend-a-Trump-event-to-give-to-veterans/-160000452798603419.html2016-01-29T16:58:00Z2016-01-29T16:58:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on <em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, Carly Fiorina confirmed she never had any intention of attending Donald Trump&rsquo;s event last night unlike Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), who chose to join Donald Trump on stage at his benefit event for veterans in Iowa. From behind Trump&rsquo;s podium, Huckabee justified his attendance, saying, &ldquo;"Rick Santorum, Donald Trump and I may be competitors in a presidential race, but tonight, we are colleagues in unison, standing here for the people who let us breathe every breath of free air that we breathe.&rdquo; From the same podium, Santorum joked, &ldquo;I'm supporting another candidate for president.&rdquo; However, he explained, &ldquo;That doesn't mean that we can't work together when it comes to helping our veterans.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Fiorina stressed that, prior to the debate, her campaign <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/267297-fiorina-challenges-trump-to-2m-debate">offered</a> to donate $2 million to veterans causes if Donald Trump would re-think his decision to boycott the debate. Trump refused the money, however, pressing on with the event, which was held just minutes away from the debate. Fiorina further explained her decision today, claiming, &ldquo;My husband and I don&rsquo;t need to attend a Donald Trump event to give to veterans causes. We have given to veterans causes for years.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript:<strong> [<a href="/b/Fiorina:-I-dont-need-to-attend-a-Trump-event-to-give-to-veterans/863140884862212111.html" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Was there any thought that you gave to maybe skipping over to Trump&rsquo;s event after the debate that you did, like Santorum and Huckabee? And, if not, why not? (6:55)</p>
<p><strong>Fiorina: </strong>Well, I offered to Mr. Trump that my campaign would write a check for $2 million to veterans causes, if he would stand on that stage and debate me. But, he passed over the $2 million. My husband and I don&rsquo;t need to attend a Donald Trump event to give to veterans causes. We have given to veterans causes for years. &nbsp;(7:05)</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Fiorina:-I-dont-need-to-attend-a-Trump-event-to-give-to-veterans/-160000452798603419.htmlStaff2016-01-29T16:58:00ZChristie: Rubio is the "Symbol of the Washington Establishment"Staffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Christie:-Rubio-is-the-Symbol-of-the-Washington-Establishment/-526247573400101206.html2016-01-29T16:53:00Z2016-01-29T16:53:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on <em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) reflected on the seventh GOP debate, which took place last night. According to Christie, Rubio was caught off-guard when Fox News played a series of video clips of the candidate saying he opposed a path to citizenship, which he equated with amnesty. The New Jersey governor slammed Rubio, calling him the "symbol of the Washington DC Establishment." Christie elaborated, claiming Rubio &ldquo;gives these canned, pre-programmed answers, and the minute you get him off script, he looks like a deer in headlights.&rdquo; Rather than continue to use "Washington speak," Christie suggested the Florida senator "should just admit he&rsquo;s moved all over the place and let people make judgements up or down based on that.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Rubio was not the only candidate confronted with a brutal compilation of his own statements during last night&rsquo;s debate; footage of Sen. Cruz discussing his amendment to the Schumer-Rubio Gang of 8 bill was also shown, which garnered a lot of attention this morning. However, the governor argued, &ldquo;Quite frankly, Sen. Cruz has gotten too much negative attention this morning, and Sen. Rubio not enough.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript:<strong> [<a href="/b/Christie:-Rubio-is-the-Symbol-of-the-Washington-Establishment/742739427980605043.html" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<p><strong>Christie: </strong>Well, listen, this is what drives people crazy. As you know, they showed two sets of tape that clearly show that Sen. Cruz and Sen. Rubio changed their position on immigration. Well, that&rsquo;s fine. They should just admit they changed their position on immigration and move on. But, instead, they sit there in this Washington talk and they go, &lsquo;no, it&rsquo;s not really it, no, the amendment was a poison pill, no, I didn&rsquo;t really mean this, no, it&rsquo;s an earned path to citizenship, but not enough obstacles.&rsquo; This is why the Washington DC Establishment drives people crazy. And, Marco Rubio last night was the symbol of the Washington DC Establishment. When he was getting hit around last night - I know Sen. Cruz has gotten a lot of attention today, but, quite frankly, I think Sen. Rubio deserves even more. He gives these canned, pre-programmed answers, but the minute you get him off script, he looks like a deer in the headlights. And, that&rsquo;s what he looked like last night when he was confronted with his own statements about where he&rsquo;s gone from being against amnesty to being the author of the amnesty bill to now being against amnesty again. He should just admit he&rsquo;s moved all over the place and let people make judgements up or down based on that. But, I think that, quite frankly, Sen. Cruz has gotten too much negative attention this morning and Sen. Rubio not enough. (18:08)</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Christie:-Rubio-is-the-Symbol-of-the-Washington-Establishment/-526247573400101206.htmlStaff2016-01-29T16:53:00ZHuckabee and Santorum Willing to Attend Trump's Event TonightStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Huckabee-and-Santorum-Willing-to-Attend-Trumps-Event-Tonight/994867022966532717.html2016-01-28T17:17:00Z2016-01-28T17:17:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br>On today's program, Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) confirmed they are willing to attend Trump's event tonight at Drake University. Asked if he would attend, Huckabee admitted, "we've put in a call to [Trump's] people and said that I'd be delighted to come." Though he has not heard back, Huckabee said, "if they say that they would be happy to have me, I'll be there."&nbsp;
<p>Santorum expressed an equal willingness to attend Trump's event tonight, revealing,&nbsp;"after the debate I'm not going to be doing anything, so, I guess, if it's a charitable thing for the troops and he invites other people to come, I certainly would attend to support the troops." However, the former senator admitted he has not yet&nbsp;received&nbsp;an&nbsp;invitation.</p>
<p>Partial Transcript:</p>
<p><strong>Santorum [<a href="/b/Santorum:-Would-Certainly-Attend-Trumps-Event-Tonight/-343518108633032953.html" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<p><strong>Huckabee [<a href="/b/Huckabee:-Weve-Put-in-a-Call-to-Trumps-People,-I-Would-Go-Stand-with-Donald/-100622103457401635.html" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Raymond Arroyo</strong>: Gov. Huckabee, will you join Donald Trump at that event? (2:46)</p>
<p><strong>Huckabee:&nbsp;</strong>I would be glad to. You know we've put in a call to his people and said that I'd be delighted to come. I don't want to go if I'm not invited, I think it'd be a little inappropriate to crash the party. But, I would go stand with Donald Trump just to support the... (2:51)</p>
<p><strong>Raymond Arroyo</strong>: Have they invited you? (3:06)</p>
<p><strong>Huckabee:</strong>&nbsp;I've not heard back. So, if they say that they would be happy to have me, I'll be there. I certainly would. Look, I'm grateful that he's going to do something for veterans. I respect the decision he's made, whether I agree with it or not or the material. (3:10)</p>
<p><strong>Santorum:</strong>&nbsp; I have not made any overtures. I'm not aware that he's&nbsp;invited anybody to come to that event. I usually don't invite myself to other candidate's political events. But, if he wants to invite me, look, as you know, after the debate I'm not going to be doing anything, so, I guess, if it's a charitable thing for the troops and he invites other people to come, I certainly would attend to support the troops. (3:26)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Huckabee-and-Santorum-Willing-to-Attend-Trumps-Event-Tonight/994867022966532717.htmlStaff2016-01-28T17:17:00ZLEWANDROSKI: O'Reilly Should Be A Debate ModeratorStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/LEWANDROSKI:-OReilly-Should-Be-A-Debate-Moderator/80096707767886755.html2016-01-27T17:34:00Z2016-01-27T17:34:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Corey Lewandrowski joined <em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em> this morning, addressing Donald Trump&rsquo;s decision not to attend the Fox News debate tomorrow evening. Contrary to the accusations, Lewandrowski maintains, &ldquo;This is not about Megyn Kelly at all, this is about being treated fairly.&rdquo; The campaign manager referenced the CNBC debate early in the race, claiming &ldquo;the moderators became the story.&rdquo; He stressed that, when the moderators take center stage, it does a disservice to viewers who are consequently unable to focus on the substantive policy ideas of the candidates.</p>
<p><br /> After conceding Mr. Trump has been treated pretty well by many at Fox, Lewandrowski suggested, &ldquo;Maybe Bill O&rsquo;Reilly should host one of those debates.&rdquo; Although O&rsquo;Reilly is no easy interview, Lewandrowski reminded listeners Trump regularly appears on the O&rsquo;Reilly Factor to willingly answer questions. So, he suggested, &ldquo;Put Bill O&rsquo;Reilly up there to ask the tough questions.&rdquo;&nbsp;<br /> <br /> Trump&rsquo;s campaign manager also responded to Sen. Cruz&rsquo;s debate challenge, which he called a &ldquo;great idea.&rdquo; However, Lewandrowski didn&rsquo;t jump on the opportunity to have the debate immediately, instead saying, &ldquo;should Ted Cruz be able to withstand the rigors of this campaign and he&rsquo;s the last one standing in second place behind Donald Trump when we get to the end of this, he&rsquo;ll have the opportunity to have that debate.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript:<strong>[<a href="/b/LEWANDROSKI:-OReilly-Should-Be-A-Debate-Moderator/85613554495351023.html" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<p><strong>Lewandrowski: </strong>Let me be clear, this is not about Megyn Kelly. At all. Donald Trump has been on more television shows, done more radio interviews, more newspaper interviews, than all of the other candidates combined. He&rsquo;s participated in six nationally televised debates, won every single one by every metric there is, including the decisive victor in the last debate where he took Ted Cruz to task for talking about New York values. So, this is not about Megyn Kelly. This is about being treated fairly. And, if you look back and you remember the CNBC debate, the moderators became the story of that debate. That&rsquo;s not what the American people want to see. They want to see the candidates on stage, they want to ask and understand what the questions are and what their vision is for America. And, what Fox has done here is put Megyn Kelly in center stage. Just like they did in the first debate where she became the story, and not the answers the candidates gave. Everyone, what they remember from that debate, is the gotcha question, the shot to take Donald Trump out from the very beginning, that Megyn Kelly leveled. And, she was unsuccessful with it and now Fox is trying to prop her up again. She cannot be an unbiased source. She has this infatuation with Donald Trump and I don&rsquo;t understand where it comes from. It&rsquo;s all she talks about on her show all the time. So, she&rsquo;s not an unbiased source. And, then yesterday, Fox put out a series of statements, unprovoked, to taunt the frontrunner about this backroom deal with Putin that they think he&rsquo;s going to be unfair. How is a candidate like that going to have a fair shot in the debate? And, what we saw is, when CNBC was unfair, the Republican National Committee stepped in, they removed NBC from future debates, because they understand this should be about the candidates and not about the moderators. (1:53)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Don&rsquo;t you think, though, Corey, you guys have been treated pretty well at Fox? I don&rsquo;t know how many times you&rsquo;ve been on Fox and Friends. I used to joke, like a year ago, that Donald Trump should just co-host it because he was on, even before he became a candidate, he was on so often. People like O&rsquo;Reilly, Bartiromo, Bill Hemer, what about all those people? Even if I take everything you say, what about all these other hosts that have been at Fox and been a good exchange, a tough exchange? (3:35)</p>
<p><strong>Lewandrowski: </strong>You&rsquo;re exactly right. And, if you look at what the Fox Business Debate was, and I know it&rsquo;s a different channel than Fox per se, but it was a very well done debate. The questions were thoughtful, they were policy related, they were respectful. And, what we saw was Maria asked some tough questions, she did a great job, and Mr. Trump was really happy with the way the questions were asked and the manner they were asked. He was happy with the outcome of the debate because it was done well. If you look at his interviews with Bill O&rsquo;Reilly, you know maybe Bill O&rsquo;Reilly should be the moderator for one of these debates. He asks tough questions, he&rsquo;s on with Mr. Trump on a regular basis. Put Bill O&rsquo;Reilly up there to ask those tough questions. It&rsquo;s not about the question, it&rsquo;s about the personal attacks leveled by the moderator who wants to make a story about herself and not let the candidates talk. Bill O&rsquo;Reilly is no easy interview, I don&rsquo;t think anybody would say he is. And, Mr. Trump goes on his show once a week or once every other week. And, he asks the tough questions and Mr. Trump is always there to answer those questions. &nbsp;(4:10)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Ted Cruz has offered, which I think is smart of him, a one on one debate with Donald Trump, no moderator. Just a one on one. (10:08)</p>
<p><strong>Lewandrowski: </strong>I think that&rsquo;s a great idea. I think it&rsquo;s a great idea and should Ted Cruz be able to withstand the rigors of this campaign and he&rsquo;s the last one standing in second place behind Donald Trump when we get to the end of this, he&rsquo;ll have the opportunity to have that debate one on one. The bottom line is&hellip;. (10:18)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Why not now? What do you mean? When it&rsquo;s all over? (10:34)</p>
<p><strong>Lewandrowski: </strong>No, as you continue to win on the field less and less candidates will be on that debate stage and if Ted Cruz can survive the rigors of this campaign and his message of flip flopping and increasing H-1B visas for illegal aliens is something the American people want, then he&rsquo;ll be the second guy standing, but the bottom line is right now Cruz has all of his hopes and dreams pinned on his success in Iowa. And, all of a sudden he wants to be the underdog? This is a candidate who has changed his position on ethanol in the last two weeks, that the great governor of Iowa has come out and said, &lsquo;Anybody but Cruz.&rsquo; He has some real problems, but doesn&rsquo;t want to admit it. Look, here&rsquo;s a guy who can&rsquo;t get along with anybody. (10:36)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/LEWANDROSKI:-OReilly-Should-Be-A-Debate-Moderator/80096707767886755.htmlStaff2016-01-27T17:34:00ZKristol: When Has Trump Ever Challenged Power?Staffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Kristol:-When-Has-Trump-Ever-Challenged-Power/29322311148096199.html2016-01-26T18:41:00Z2016-01-26T18:41:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, founder and editor of the Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol, addressed the question looming over the Republican Party: &ldquo;Should Donald Trump be president?&rdquo; Kristol, who contributed to National Review&rsquo;s &ldquo;Conservatives Against Trump&rdquo; editorial, reiterated his belief that Donald Trump will not secure the nomination, though he did concede the billionaire is &ldquo;tapping into the frustration and desperation&rdquo; felt throughout the United States. However, Kristol said he, personally, seeks a candidate &ldquo;who cares about the constitution, who cares about limited government, who&rsquo;s really committed to breaking up the crony capitalism in Washington, and so forth.&rdquo; Trump, he argued, has a &ldquo;history is getting along with the people in power.&rdquo; Kristol asked, &ldquo;When has [Trump] ever challenged the powers that be?&rdquo; He further warned against Trump, saying, &ldquo;Desperation and frustration can lead to very foolish things.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Ingraham has repeatedly criticized the anti-Trump editorial, referenced &ldquo;all these people stamping their feet over at National Review,&rdquo; a statement Kristol ardently disagreed with. He argued, &ldquo;They&rsquo;re not stomping . . . they&rsquo;re saying they don&rsquo;t think he should be the nominee.&rdquo; Ingraham, however, pushed back on this, suggesting the purpose of the editorial would have been better served by presenting a real case for other candidates, giving a case for who <em>should</em> be the nominee, rather than &ldquo;ex-communicating&rdquo; guy who has captured the imagination of the people. Kristol did not disagree, but maintained, &ldquo;people on the right saying, wait a second, let&rsquo;s make sure or try to make sure he&rsquo;s a conservative, let&rsquo;s remind him what conservatism is about doesn&rsquo;t hurt either.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript [<a href="/b/Kristol:-When-Has-Trump-Ever-Challenged-Power/448593335598514949.html" target="_blank"><strong>LISTEN</strong></a>]</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">***</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Kristol: </strong>Desperation and frustration can also lead to very foolish things. And, people need to be serious about this choice. I do think Marco Rubio, for example, has tried, maybe he&rsquo;s too timid, to think about and to propose policies that would address working class and middle class wage stagnation and so forth. And, I wish there were more substantive policy debates in this Republican primary. And, I&rsquo;ve urged, whatever little it&rsquo;s worth, people like Cruz and Rubio and Christie to be more policy heavy. I think the way to beat Trump is to say, Trump is tapping into the frustration and desperation you just described, and that woman describes very eloquently. But, what are his solutions compared to our solutions. Now, I have some confidence in Cruz and Christie and Rubio that they would be serious people in trying to deal with these frustrations. But, I agree with you. In general, the party has been too timid, the party has been too much captive&hellip; (7:45)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Kristol: </strong>I think analytically you're more right than I&rsquo;ve been in the sense that you saw the depth of discontent so you were right in predicting Trump would be stronger and I kept thinking he would fade. I still don&rsquo;t think he&rsquo;ll be the nominee, but he obviously has a lot of support. I don&rsquo;t agree with you that if he gets those two things right everything else will follow . . . (11:45)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Kristol:</strong> They are going to repeal Obamacare with a Republican president.&nbsp; Unless we have a president like Donald Trump who&rsquo;s used to cutting deals with everyone. Donald Trump would bring less change to Washington than Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, or Chris Christie. Not more. Donald Trump&rsquo;s history is getting along with the people in power. When has he ever challenged power? He&rsquo;s 69 years old, Laura. When has he ever challenged the powers that be? (12:35)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>I mean, better now than never. Ronald Reagan was a Democrat for most of his life and was castigated by many of the people who are attacking Trump today. We can go back and pull those quotes from Krauthammer and even George WIll in the 70&rsquo;s. These are my friends, I like these guys, but let&rsquo;s talk turkey on who was trashing Ronald Reagan when Reagan was coming up through the ranks. And, I&rsquo;m not saying Trump&rsquo;s Reagan, I&rsquo;ve never said that. But, I do believe, again, that when the system has become so corrupt and so adverse to the American family on so many levels, the fact that this guy comes along and says, these are the two things I&rsquo;m going to really get right and I&rsquo;m going to be this, that, and the other. People are like, well, we&rsquo;ll try this. And, I&rsquo;m not saying it's perfect. (13:00)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Kristol: </strong>Honestly, if he&rsquo;s the nominee and he&rsquo;s president, I very much hope conservatives influence him. And, I honestly think people on the right saying, wait a second, let&rsquo;s make sure or try to make sure he&rsquo;s a conservative, let&rsquo;s remind him what conservatism is about&hellip; (13:47)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Why don&rsquo;t you do that with him? (14:03)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Kristol: </strong>Doesn&rsquo;t hurt either. He shouldn&rsquo;t, everyone shouldn&rsquo;t just roll over for him because he&rsquo;s at 39%... (14:04)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>I don&rsquo;t think so either. No way. But, my point with you is you&rsquo;re someone who is unusual in the legion of conservative intellectuals because you&rsquo;ve actually, Larry Kudlow&rsquo;s done the same thing, you haven&rsquo;t just said the people are wrong, they&rsquo;re nativists, they&rsquo;re stupid, they&rsquo;re anti-immigrant, they&rsquo;re protectionist. All the things we&rsquo;ve heard that have made the people more and more ticked off over the past 12 years. You haven&rsquo;t done that. So, someone like you, frankly helping Trump on some of these issues would be really useful. Right now, it looks like he&rsquo;s going to be the nominee of the party and we have all these people stamping their feet over at National Review. And, I know you wrote your piece saying he&rsquo;s the worst thing ever&hellip;</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Kristol: </strong>That&rsquo;s not fair, Laura. They&rsquo;re not stomping . . . they&rsquo;re saying they don&rsquo;t think he should be the nominee. If he&rsquo;s the nominee&hellip; (14:54)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Then why don&rsquo;t they come out and say who should be the nominee. Why not come out and say Marco Rubio is the best candidate and here are the reasons why. And, that&rsquo;s why Trump should be more like Marco. Or, that&rsquo;s why Cruz should be more likeable. Why just say, the guy who has captured the imagination of the people, we&rsquo;re going to excommunicate from the conservative movement. Because, last time I checked, they did that to Huckabee, to Buchanan, to Bob Novak. They did that to all those people. (14:56)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Kristol: </strong>Look, I don&rsquo;t like the term excommunication and I don&rsquo;t think that&rsquo;s a term that&rsquo;s used there. But, look, if you , I hope if Trump . . I think A) We shouldn&rsquo;t judge the nominee before any vote has been cast. People are entitled to fight for Cruz, for Rubio, for Christie&hellip; So, let&rsquo;s have that fight. (15:22)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Kristol:-When-Has-Trump-Ever-Challenged-Power/29322311148096199.htmlStaff2016-01-26T18:41:00ZISIS Releases New Video of Paris AttackersStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/ISIS-Releases-New-Video-of-Paris-Attackers/129206610292645486.html2016-01-25T15:05:00Z2016-01-25T15:05:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Late Sunday, SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors jihadi websites, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/24/middleeast/isis-video-paris-attackers/">released </a>an appalling new video, shows nine of the extremists who carried out the Nov. 13 attacks in Paris beheading and shooting captives. The 17 minute video also shows the terrorists training with weapons, as well as plotting the horrific tragedy in Paris. The montage depicts the extensive planning that went into November&rsquo;s terror attack, which the French authorities have long <a href="http://time.com/4114123/paris-attacks-syria-isis-manuel-valls/">suspected </a>began in Syria. Though the video did not specify where the men were filmed, experts believe it to be from ISIS-controlled territory in Syria, confirming France&rsquo;s earlier suspicions.</p>
<p>The tape begins with a montage of reports on the Paris attacks, and gets increasingly gruesome. According to CNN, the tape then shows the faces and names of those ISIS claims carried out the attacks in Paris. "The following are the final messages of the nine lions of the khilafah who were mobilized from their dens to bring an entire country -- France -- to her knees," the video reads. Each of the attackers filmed a small segment and, at the end of most of the messages, the militant kills a prisoner.</p>
<p>The chilling film concludes with the jihadi group issuing a threat to carry out their next terror attack in the UK; The message reads: 'Whoever stands in the ranks of Kufr will be a target for our swords and will fall in humiliation' and appears while David Cameron addresses the house. The threat follows Britain&rsquo;s decision to carry out airstrikes in Syria. According to a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/24/isis-video-paris-attackers-iraq-syria-david-cameron">spokesman </a>for the UK government, they &ldquo;are currently examining this latest Daesh propaganda video &ndash; another desperate move from an appalling terrorist group that is clearly in decline.&rdquo;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/ISIS-Releases-New-Video-of-Paris-Attackers/129206610292645486.htmlStaff2016-01-25T15:05:00ZCountdown to Iowa: 7 DaysStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Countdown-to-Iowa:-7-Days/-526448496929358907.html2016-01-25T15:03:00Z2016-01-25T15:03:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Just one week before the Iowa caucus, Donald Trump maintains a strong lead within the Republican party. New <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/24/seven-days-away-trump-in-command-in-iowa-with-one-week-until-caucuses/" target="_blank">polls</a> from Fox and CBS released Sunday confirm the billionaire is still in command, despite <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430126/donald-trump-conservatives-oppose-nomination" target="_blank">National Review&rsquo;</a>s anti-Trump crusade last week. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) had been gaining on Trump over the past few weeks, however ,the CBS poll shows Trump up by five points in the Hawkeye state, leading competitor Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) 39-34. The Fox News poll of likely caucus goers, however, Trump is up by 11 points, a 15-point swing in the two weeks between surveys.</p>
<p>Cruz and Trump both announced big endorsements last week, hoping to boost their chances of securing a victory in the first caucus of the campaign season. Former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AL)&rsquo;s endorsement of Donald Trump sparked controversy sparked discussion over whether the controversial former VP candidate would help or hurt Trump. However, the latest Iowa polls confirm predictions her support resonated positively with Iowa voters. Cruz&rsquo;s latest support came from another controversial figure within the Republican Party, Glenn Beck. Beck, who contributed to NR&rsquo;s slam piece on Trump last week, endorsed Cruz <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/23/media/glenn-beck-ted-cruz-president/" target="_blank">as</a> &ldquo;a guy who stands on his principles relentlessly.&rdquo;</p>
<p>With just one week and one debate to go, candidates are running out of time to motivate voters to get out and vote. According to Fox&rsquo;s latest poll, there has been a dip in the percentage of voters who would &ldquo;definitely&rdquo; go out and caucus on February 1. As the caucus closes in, the candidates clearly have work to do to convince voters to brave the cold and caucus next week.</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Countdown-to-Iowa:-7-Days/-526448496929358907.htmlStaff2016-01-25T15:03:00ZHuckabee, Buchanan, Schlafly Pummel NRStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Huckabee,-Buchanan,-Schlafly-Pummel-NR/254329413551385022.html2016-01-22T18:00:00Z2016-01-22T18:00:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on <em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR), former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, Reagan biographer Craig Shirley, and conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly denounced National Review for it&rsquo;s controversial editorial, <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430137/donald-trump-conservative-movement-menace" target="_blank">&ldquo;Against Trump.&rdquo;</a> The 29-page editorial features articles by 22 conservatives - including Glenn Beck, Rich Lowry, Erick Erickson, and Brent Bozell - who believe Trump is not deserving of Republican support, or the GOP nomination. Buchanan was baffled by NR&rsquo;s piece, saying, &ldquo;National Review has a right to endorse or not endorse or impose anyone it wants, but I don&rsquo;t think it&rsquo;s really relevant to what&rsquo;s going on.&rdquo; Craig Shirley echoed Buchanan&rsquo;s sentiment, claiming NR made a tactical mistake by compiling the articles, rather than releasing a steady drip of anti-Trump articles. Even Gov. Huckabee came to Trump&rsquo;s defense, labeling the crusade a &ldquo;fool-hearted errand on the part of National Review.&rdquo;</p>
<p><br /> According to Phyllis Schlafly, &ldquo;National Review is not the authentic Conservative.&rdquo; She referenced Bill Buckley&rsquo;s support for giving away the Panama Canal and NR&rsquo;s refusal to report on the Equal Rights Amendment, suggesting this background prevents NR from being an &ldquo;authority on Conservatism.&rdquo; Further, Huckabee said, these attacks are &ldquo;completely out of touch with what conservatism means these days,&rdquo; He continued, saying this morning&rsquo;s publication aligns National Review with the interests of big business and Wall Street, proving &ldquo;just how disconnected they are from the voters in this election cycle.&rdquo; Buchanan labeled the authors of National Review&rsquo;s piece &ldquo;Davos conservatives,&rdquo; suggesting their viewpoints are more closely aligned with those at this week&rsquo;s World Economic Forum. However, he continued, &ldquo;the whole western world is saying wait a minute, it doesn&rsquo;t look like this is working from any standpoint.&rdquo;</p>
<p><br /> Shirley suggested, &ldquo;Maybe it&rsquo;s not just about power. Maybe it is because he truly wants to make America great again. Maybe it is because he&rsquo;s so dismayed about the direction of the country over immigration, trade, the budget deficit, all the other issues we&rsquo;ve discussed.&rdquo; However, NR&rsquo;s lengthy criticism certainly fails to give Trump any credit for, just maybe, truly wanting to make America great again.</p>
<p>Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/b/Gov.-Huckabee:-Organizations-like-the-National-Review-are-completely-out-of-touch-with-American-voters./-139095967560898130.html" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Huckabee</span></strong></p>
<p><strong>Huckabee: </strong>This was a fool-hearted errand on the part of National Review. Why would they do this? It just shows though that this is the elitists who live in their own little bubble and they think they represent rank and file. I guarantee you, out here in Iowa, they are not representative and their views are not representative. They want the TPP, well, they don't want that out here. They don't think the issues of the sanctity of life are that important, here on the 43rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade? You better believe it's important to those of us who don't think that there's such a thing as a disposable or expendable human being. They're going to get out there and push for Wall Street bailouts? Well, there are a lot of people here in Iowa that never got bailed out. And, I just think that organizations like the National Review are completely out of touch with what conservatism means these days. &nbsp;(4:32)</p>
<p><strong>Huckabee: </strong>If you do something because you really think it's going to work and it doesn't, you don't keep defending it and keep spending money on it. You just admit this didn't work, let's do something else, let's do something better. Let's don't defend the indefensible. And, I think this is one of the reasons people are so frustrated in this election cycle. But, when the National Review represents essentially the efforts of big business at the expense of small business, when they focus on what's really good for Wall Street and not what's good for main street, I think they reveal just how disconnected they are from the voters in this election cycle. And, they miss why there's such a frustration with voters. (6:31)</p>
<p>Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/b/Pat-Buchanan-on-the-National-Reviews-Conservatives-Against-Trump/275335148270511992.html" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Buchanan</span></strong></p>
<p><strong>Buchanan: </strong>Basically, [Trump&rsquo;s] support is the opposite side of the coin of the national perception of the Washington Establishment. And, even of the Republican Establishment to achieve what it promised. People have just had enough and they&rsquo;re walking away, and Trump offers them something. And, quite clearly, he&rsquo;s a very effective politician, very successful. And, my guess is he&rsquo;s going to get the nomination. I mean, National Review has a right to endorse or not endorse or impose anyone it wants. But, I don&rsquo;t think it&rsquo;s really relevant to what&rsquo;s going on. (4:42)</p>
<p><strong>Buchanan: </strong>What they&rsquo;re saying in effect on trade and borders and things like that, they are Davos conservatives. That&rsquo;s what you get at that big summit over there right now in Davos. Open borders, the Schengen agreement, bring in immigrants from the middle and near East. But, the whole western world is saying wait a minute, it doesn&rsquo;t look like this is working from any standpoint. (4:42)</p>
<p>Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/b/Craig-Shirley-on-the-National-Review-being-stripped-of-debate-sponsorship-over-anti-Trump-issue/975462551193627440.html" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Shirley</span></strong></p>
<p><strong>Shirley</strong>: I think that tactically they made a mistake though. If they wanted to have a bigger impact, instead of just all piling on at once, they would have done it one at a time and built kind of a momentum. I look at that kind of as a campaign manager and it might have served their purposes better if each day there was a new front opened against Trump&rsquo;s candidacy. And, then, over the long haul they may have had a bigger impact. Now, the debate is just about the efficacy of the magazine, should they have done it, and now they&rsquo;re pulled out of the debate. Then, you have the name calling instead of legitimate complaints, or issues, against Donald Trump. (5:17)</p>
<p>Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/b/Phyllis-Schlafly:-I-dont-recognize-National-Review-as-the-authority-on-Conservatism./937455163169861101.html" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Schlafly</span></strong></p>
<p><strong>Schlafly: </strong>National Review is not the authentic Conservative. You know Bill Buckley was for giving away the Panama Canal, which was an enormous issue with Conservatives. And, in 10 years they never wrote a single article about the Equal Rights Amendment. So, they were no help against that. So I don't recognize National Review as the authority on Conservatism. (3:36)</p>
<p><strong>Schlafly: </strong>We are just grateful to Trump for bringing up the issue of immigration. I think immigration is the top issue and he&rsquo;s the one who has made it a front burner issue. (4:58)</p>
<p><strong>Schlafly: </strong>We do respond when he says he wants to make America great again. Yes, we do. Obama didn&rsquo;t want to make us great again. He wanted to make us like everybody else. We don&rsquo;t want to be about everyone else. That&rsquo;s why people came to this country. (9:45)</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Huckabee,-Buchanan,-Schlafly-Pummel-NR/254329413551385022.htmlStaff2016-01-22T18:00:00ZChristie: Law Enforcement Includes DeportationsStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Christie:-Law-Enforcement-Includes-Deportations/-744280041708265467.html2016-01-21T18:15:00Z2016-01-21T18:15:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, Gov. Christie (R-NJ) discussed his supposed &ldquo;flip flop&rdquo; on the issue of illegal immigration. Back in April, Christie said he did not believe illegal immigrants would engage in self-deportation, even if it is made inhospitable for them to live in the United States. Today, Christie confirmed he stands by that view, but also admitted enforcing E-Verify and fining employers &ldquo;would decrease some of the people that are here, just naturally as they can&rsquo;t find a job.&rdquo; Christie also addressed the recent report revealing there are nearly half a million visa overstayers in the U.S. who have not been forced to leave. The New Jersey governor reiterated that the country does not need new immigration laws, but rather to enforce the laws that are on the books. Although some Republicans are hesitant to discuss deportation, Christie stressed law enforcement &ldquo;covers everything - deportation, E-verify, setting up a biometric system for visa holders so that we can track them and make sure they&rsquo;re removed from the country if they try to overstay.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/b/Gov.-Christie:-Defends-Shifts-Over-the-Years-on-Common-Core,-abortion-and-guns/740784600932220946.html" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>In April, we were talking about deportations. You were talking to the Conference of the Americas, hosted by the State Department, and you said, I&rsquo;m not someone who believes that folks who have come here in that status - illegally - are going to engage in self-deportation. That, even if it&rsquo;s made inhospitable for them to be here, that they&rsquo;re not going to really self deport. Do you still, with everything we&rsquo;re seeing, do you still hold on to that view? (2:57)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Christie: </strong>I do. But, I also do think that that doesn&rsquo;t mean we shouldn&rsquo;t use E-Verify and fine employers, in my view, double whatever they make off someone they hire illegally. In order to send a very clear message to the people who are already here and those who plan on trying to come illegally that you can&rsquo;t be employed here. There&rsquo;s no question that would decrease some of the people that are here, just naturally as they can&rsquo;t find a job, and will slow down some of the flow of people coming, because the word will get out very quickly that the law is being enforced in this country. And, if it&rsquo;s being enforced, you shouldn&rsquo;t come here, because you&rsquo;re not going to be able to get a job. (3:28)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Some of the laws include deportation, but it seems to me there are a lot of Republicans out there who are afraid to talk about deporting people. But, it seems to me that if you increase the number of people you deport and then you the things that you&rsquo;re talking about - the E-Verify, fining employers, removing all these incentives for people to stay - it&rsquo;ll end up generally, I think, lowering the number of people here illegally. Mark Krikorian says it&rsquo;s down to a manageable nuisance. But, if people know they're not going to be deported, hence the current situation with the visa overstays. If they know they&rsquo;re not going to be deported, then they just stay. And, that&rsquo;s why we have 416,000 visa overstays here as of January 10. (4:07)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Christie: </strong>You&rsquo;re absolutely right. That&rsquo;s why our campaign right from the beginning has said we need a president who knows how to enforce the law and will enforce the law. And, that covers everything - deportation, E-verify, setting up a biometric system for visa holders so that we can track them and make sure they&rsquo;re removed from the country if they try to overstay their visa. These are all methods that we&rsquo;re using to enforce laws that already exist. Everyone wants to talk about new laws, we don&rsquo;t need new laws. What we need is to enforce the ones that are there. (4:49)</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Christie:-Law-Enforcement-Includes-Deportations/-744280041708265467.htmlStaff2016-01-21T18:15:00ZTrump v. Hillary? Or, Trump v. Sanders?Staffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Trump-v.-Hillary-Or,-Trump-v.-Sanders/-676902660344982883.html2016-01-20T18:47:00Z2016-01-20T18:47:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on <em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, Mike Allen, Politico&rsquo;s senior White House correspondent, discussed the possible outcomes of various 2016 match-ups. In a hypothetical Trump-Hillary match-up, Allen explained, &ldquo;up until very, very recently everyone you would've talked to would've said that Hillary would be the prohibitive favorite in that.&rdquo; He pointed to new developments in the Trump campaign, which tout &ldquo;more of a path that you might see, including mobilizing African-Americans and, again, mobilizing a lot of people who normally don't vote.&rdquo; Therefore, this match-up would not necessarily be a wipe-out for Hillary.</p>
<p>A Sanders-Trump match-up would, according to Allen, &ldquo;be great to cover, because you have two people who aren't predictable.&rdquo; Both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are &ldquo;breaking rules, finding new ways to run for president.&rdquo; Ingraham suggested Bernie&rsquo;s crossover appeal would be a &ldquo;much heavier lift&rdquo; for Trump, than it would be against Hillary, as the two candidates would compete for the youth and working class vote. Regarding this competition, Allen said, &ldquo;for a lot of voters this could be like choosing between your grandpa and your grandma.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/b/Mike-Allen:-Sen.-Sanders-Could-Be-Harder-For-Trump-To-Beat/226041718202161913.html" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong>&nbsp;</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham:</strong> When you think of the Republican field, and let&rsquo;s say Trump or Cruz becomes the nominee, what do you think in all your reporting, Mike, about who would be a better person to run against? Let&rsquo;s say it's Donald Trump.&nbsp; Is it Hillary or is it Bernie?&nbsp; Who's more problematic as a competitor? (11:31)&nbsp;</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Allen:</strong> If you have a Trump-Hillary match-up, he&rsquo;s been practicing for that. They've both been running against each other for a while and I think that up until very, very recently everyone you would've talked to would've said that Hillary would be the prohibitive favorite in that.&nbsp; We're starting to see now an argument from the Trump side, there's more of a path that you might see, including mobilizing African-Americans and, again, mobilizing a lot of people who normally don't vote.&nbsp; So, there's not this sort of wipe-out there that people might have assumed.&nbsp; Sanders-Trump, oh, that would be so great for all of us, right? That would be great to cover, because you have two people who aren't predictable. This is another way that those guys are breaking rules, finding new ways to run for president. There's a great interview with the Sanders family in the new issue of People Magazine and there's a quote from Mrs. Sanders who says, 'He splurges on only things for the family - the swing-set, the deck, we got a new roof. But, if Bernie has seven sweaters, that's three too many for him.&rsquo; (12:12)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham:</strong> Well, I think when you think about Trump in practicing for all these months against Hillary, he's sharpened those attacks and they're pretty successful.&nbsp; Going up against a person like Bernie Sanders, who tries to be a Democrat Populist, and I think a Populist is someone who wants to shrink government, but it's that working class appeal that he has, he wants the American workers to do better, he doesn't like this adventurist foreign policy, etc. etc.&nbsp; He has some crossover appeal I think, Bernie Sanders.&nbsp; So, I think the two of them against each other, that's harder for Trump.&nbsp; And, people might be surprised that I'm saying that.&nbsp; Hillary, you have a panoply of things to bring up against Hillary.&nbsp; Bernie, yea, he's a Socialist, yea you could say that over and over again, but I think it's a much heavier lift against Bernie Sanders, for Trump, than it is Hillary. (13:45)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Trump-v.-Hillary-Or,-Trump-v.-Sanders/-676902660344982883.htmlStaff2016-01-20T18:47:00ZPalin Endorsement About "Getting Through Iowa"Staffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Palin-Endorsement-About-Getting-Through-Iowa/-592168325922340062.html2016-01-20T18:25:00Z2016-01-20T18:25:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, editor-in-chief of The Iowa Republican and former political director of the GOP of Iowa, Craig Robinson reacted to Sarah Palin&rsquo;s endorsement of frontrunner Donald Trump. Palin announced her support for the billionaire yesterday, sparking concerns the former VP candidate might alienate independents and Democrat supporters. Despite these concerns, Robinson claimed, &ldquo;this was a good stroke by the Trump campaign to dominate a new cycle, to change the subject.&rdquo; In the last debate, Trump was criticized by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) for his &ldquo;New York values.&rdquo; Palin&rsquo;s endorsement, Robinson said, &ldquo;validates [Trump&rsquo;s] outsider, anti-Establishment credibility.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Robinson reminded those who are skeptical about Palin&rsquo;s endorsement offsetting his ability to engage independents, Democrats, and those who have not formally engaged in the political process to &ldquo;look at the time frame in which this is happening.&rdquo; Sarah Palin&rsquo;s endorsement, Robinson explained, is &ldquo;about Iowa, getting through Iowa.&rdquo; Though her endorsement may help Trump with Iowa caucus goers, Robinson predicted, &ldquo;I don&rsquo;t think we&rsquo;re going to see Sarah Palin front and center at Trump events for a prolonged period of time.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/b/Iowa-Pollster:-I-think-Trump-is-going-to-win-Iowa,-it-will-be-very-close-but-he-will-pull-it-out/84326280888325049.html" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>With the Palin endorsement yesterday, she spoke for quite a long time on stage with Donald Trump. What does that bring Trump in Iowa? Does it restore or help his credibility on being a true, populist conservative? Where do we stand on that? (1:34)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Robinson: </strong>I think, if anything, it helps change the subject. Where the Cruz campaign was having this whole dialogue about New York values and Donald Trump. And, if Sarah Palin is anything, she is not New York values, whatever definition you want to apply to that. So, I think this was a good stroke by the Trump campaign to dominate a new cycle, to change the subject. It validates his outsider, anti-Establishment credibility. You know, and they&rsquo;re both big advocates for our men and women who serve this country. And, so, there are some other bits that it will help Trump, I think, down the road in Iowa and elsewhere. (1:57)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>What about the concern that I&rsquo;ve been reading about and discussing on the show with my listeners that Sarah Palin is going backward, where Trump is something new. He has a cool, fun factor and Sarah Palin is, you know, not new. She&rsquo;s been on the scene for a long time now - eight years. She was new in 2008. Everyone was new at one time. But, with independent voters especially, and even those Democrats - I&rsquo;m jumping ahead obviously here - but, even the Democrats who are now turning away from Clinton and even Sanders and giving a look at Cruz or Trump, mostly Trump, what does that do for them? (2:41)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Robinson: &nbsp;</strong>I think that&rsquo;s a fascinating statement. I do think that Trump has this unique ability to engage people who aren&rsquo;t necessarily participating in the political process. So, he&rsquo;s activating, bringing new people into the party, or to even vote, that just would be on the sidelines before. i think you&rsquo;re correct. I think Sarah Palin might work against that a little bit, but I think we have to look at the time frame in which this is happening. I think the Sarah Palin endorsement is about Iowa, getting through Iowa. I don&rsquo;t think we&rsquo;re going to see Sarah Palin front and center at Trump events for a prolonged period of time. (3:26)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>So, you think this is a dip in and out of Iowa and she&rsquo;s not going to be going to New Hampshire or Florida or Nevada so much, you don&rsquo;t think. (4:11)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Robinson: </strong>No, I don&rsquo;t think so. Maybe southern states. But, again, it&rsquo;s the perception that Sarah Palin has with some voters that is valuable, not necessarily what she says on stage. So, I think the Trump campaign has to be careful because Trump&rsquo;s brand is very powerful and it&rsquo;s very different than&hellip; (4:25)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>And there&rsquo;s no one else. No one else in that brand except him, really. (4:52 )</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Robinson: </strong>You&rsquo;re absolutely right. &nbsp;(4:57)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Palin-Endorsement-About-Getting-Through-Iowa/-592168325922340062.htmlStaff2016-01-20T18:25:00ZJeffrey Lord: Rubio is Exactly Why We Need Donald TrumpStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Jeffrey-Lord:-Rubio-is-Exactly-Why-We-Need-Donald-Trump/955208331683209831.html2016-01-19T18:18:00Z2016-01-19T18:18:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on <em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, Jeffrey Lord, former aide to Ronald Reagan, discussed why he believes Donald Trump is the best candidate to lead America. Lord has been a staunch supporter of Donald Trump for months and, just yesterday, released his new book, <em>What America Needs: The Case for Trump</em>. According to Lord, voters have discerned Trump as a strong leader, one who, unlike Obama, will not apologize for American values and will, as his slogan promises, &lsquo;Make America Great Again.&rsquo;</p>
<p>On the program, Ingraham criticized Marco Rubio who, this weekend, claimed the pathway to citizenship question is &ldquo;not a yes or no answer&rdquo; partially because &ldquo;there is no unanimity&rdquo; on the issue in the United States. In June, however, Rubio said he fully supported a pathway to citizenship. Lord explained, &ldquo;the thing you were just talking about with Marco Rubio is exactly why we need Donald Trump.&rdquo; The former Reagan aide stressed it is Trump&rsquo;s perceived leadership ability that has drawn such overwhelming support across the nation. After years of feeling cheated by the GOP, American voters believe Trump &ldquo;will never do exactly what Marco Rubio just did over there in Iowa this weekend.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript:<strong> [<a href="/b/Jeffrey-Lord:-Why-The-GOP-Is-Panicking-Over-Trump/494747590872971560.html" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>So, why does America need Trump? He&rsquo;s ruffling a lot of feathers with his comments about Ted Cruz, hitting Cruz hard, who is beloved in many conservative circles. Why is he the best person to lead America? (5:56)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Lord: </strong>I think, you know, the thing you were just talking about with Marco Rubio is exactly why we need Donald Trump. In other words, can you imagine that famous &lsquo;time for choosing&rsquo; of Ronald Reagan&rsquo;s if he had gone on air for Barry Goldwater and said, &lsquo;Well, I&rsquo;d like you to support Goldwater, but we haven&rsquo;t convinced a lot of the country yet, so we&rsquo;re just going to have to try and figure out what to do next.&rsquo; Of course not. The whole speech was called a time for <em>choosing</em>. And, you lead the country. That&rsquo;s what leadership is all about. This is what I think Donald Trump is very good at, this is what I think a lot of Americans have discerned here as they listen to Donald Trump. That he will never do exactly what Marco Rubio just did over there in Iowa this weekend. (6:09)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Jeffrey-Lord:-Rubio-is-Exactly-Why-We-Need-Donald-Trump/955208331683209831.htmlStaff2016-01-19T18:18:00Z3 Left Standing After GOP DebateStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/3-Left-Standing-After-GOP-Debate/73062615229917928.html2016-01-15T22:35:00Z2016-01-15T22:35:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Last night, just a few weeks before the Iowa caucus, the remaining GOP candidates took the stage for the sixth Republican debate. According to the <a href="http://drudgereport.com/nowsc.htm" target="_blank">Drudge Poll</a> this morning, the race has narrowed to three candidates: Donald Trump (53%), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) (31%), and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) (8.5%). No other candidate polled above 3%, although Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) did secure fourth place at slightly over 2%.</p>
<p>Despite Cruz&rsquo;s surge in the polls, his fight against Trump&rsquo;s birther comments are far from over. According to a new <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/quarter-republicans-think-cruzs-birthplace-disqualifies-him-president-120508988.html" target="_blank">poll</a>, a quarter of Republicans believe Cruz should be disqualified to serve as U.S. president. Last week, in an interview with the Washington Post&rsquo;s Bob Costa, Trump announced he believed Cruz&rsquo;s place of birth had the potential to disqualify him for the presidency, triggering a wave of attacks on Cruz. After throwing punches back and forth, the two candidates finally clashed in their most intense and personal encounters during FBN's debate. Back in November, Trump told Ingraham, &ldquo;I like [Cruz]. He&rsquo;s been very, very strong towards me,&rdquo; suggesting he would consider the Texas senator as a vice president, should the billionaire secure the nomination. However, much has changed, as, following last night&rsquo;s debate, Trump reneged his support for Cruz, telling Dana Bash, &ldquo;I guess the bromance is over.&rdquo;</p>
<p>As the Iowa caucus approaches, keep an eye on Rubio, Cruz, and Trump - the gloves are out and the real battle for the presidency is just beginning.</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/3-Left-Standing-After-GOP-Debate/73062615229917928.htmlStaff2016-01-15T22:35:00ZLong-Time Democrats Support Trump, Cite ImmigrationStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Long-Time-Democrats-Support-Trump,-Cite-Immigration/-595747477782018078.html2016-01-13T18:51:00Z2016-01-13T18:51:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, Ingraham received several calls from long-time Democrats who have decided to shift their support to the Republican frontrunner, Donald Trump. The primary reason? Concerns over immigration. The first caller said, &ldquo;a lot of the things that he [Trump] says make sense to me, about immigration, about going against being politically correct.&rdquo; Further, she revealed she knows many other Democrats who will support Trump in 2016 as they are &ldquo;very scared&rdquo; about immigration.</p>
<p>Richard, the second caller, was also driven to Donald Trump due to his stance on immigration; the caller pushed back on Obama&rsquo;s claim that immigration is not driving down wages, saying, &ldquo;They are keeping wages down. Why would you give me a raise when you could fire me and hire an immigrant for less pay?&rdquo; Richard also announced he has a large issue with the refusal of many immigrants to assimilate, using education as an example; &ldquo;now these days you have to speak Spanish if you want to be a teacher, and I don't understand that.&nbsp; I thought immigrants were suppose to be speaking English.&rdquo; As a result of these concerns, Richard has decided to stand with Donald Trump because, &ldquo;I can't win unless I vote for a president that's willing to put up walls and stop this madness and immigration.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript: [<strong><a href="/calloftheday?pid=23493" target="_blank">LISTEN</a></strong>]</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham:</strong> You voted for Obama two times, am I really suppose to believe that?&nbsp; Go ahead.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Caller 1:</strong> Well you know when you listen to Obama, in his speeches he's just such a great speaker, but as I see now how the country's going and how he's poorly managing the country and he's poorly managing the Middle East I'm definitely leaning towards voting for Trump. (00:08)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham:</strong> On what issues do you agree with Trump if you were an Obama supporter? (00:24)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Caller 1:</strong> Because a lot of the things that he [Trump] says make sense to me, about immigration, about going against being politically correct.&nbsp; People are so scared of, I have friends and relatives and people at work that are scared to speak their minds because they're scared they are going to have retribution for expressing any kind of concerns over the Muslim issue.&nbsp; As a matter of fact, I had a co-worker that was fired because he said something in his personal Facebook page that offended the Muslims. (00:27)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham:</strong> I have a question for you Angela.&nbsp; Do you know other Democrats who are thinking of voting for Trump? (00:59)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Caller 1:</strong> Yes.&nbsp; Yes I do (1:03)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham:</strong> And do they cite the same thing? Immigration? (1:05)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Caller 1:</strong> They are very concerned, yes, they are very scared.&nbsp; As a matter of fact, I've never ever thought about getting a gun before, but after the things that are happening in this country my family &nbsp;decided that we are going to own a handgun for protection.&nbsp; I never ever wanted to do that either but the way Obama's handling everything, demonizing the police force, emboldening criminals, it just makes us more concerned about that and concerned about our welfare (1:08)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham:</strong> Richard, go ahead.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Caller 2:</strong> Laura, I'm a Democrat with a small D, I'm an African-American, and I've been preaching to my friends to go out and vote for Donald Trump.&nbsp; They can't believe I listen to your show, but I am thinking about my daughter, and immigration affects my daughter because they are bringing terrorists over in this country that one day my daughter might get blown up somewhere (00:01)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham:</strong> What other issues? (00:31)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Caller 2:</strong> I concerned about how I see what's going on the schools, how now these days you have to speak Spanish if you want to be a teacher, and I don't understand that.&nbsp; I thought immigrants were suppose to be speaking English.&nbsp; Food stamps, I was born in this country, lived here all my life, never got food stamps or anything, but yet I can see other people coming into this country and I go into stores and their carts are full up with food stamps, they get free health care, I don't get no free health care. (00:32)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham:</strong> Richard, you sound like you voted Republican before though, right?&nbsp; Are you registered Democrat or are you a republican? (1:06)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Caller 2:</strong> No, I'm a registered Democrat, always voted Democrat, but I'm sick of the Democrat, and really I'm sick of the Republicans too.&nbsp; So, I don't know which way to go.&nbsp; I'm lost in the wilderness except for voting for Donald Trump because the Republicans, they just want cheap labor and the Democrats just want the vote.&nbsp; So, where does a person like me stand? I can't win unless I vote for a president that's willing to put up walls and stop this madness and immigration.&nbsp; We let immigrants into this country all the time. (1:10)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham:</strong> The president yesterday, Richard, said that the idea that all these immigrants coming in are keeping wages down, that's wrong, he said. (1:47)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Caller 2:</strong> They are keeping wages down. Why would you give me a raise when you could fire me and hire an immigrant for less pay? (1:53)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Long-Time-Democrats-Support-Trump,-Cite-Immigration/-595747477782018078.htmlStaff2016-01-13T18:51:00ZBaier: Establishment in "Full Nervous Mode"Staffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Baier:-Establishment-in-Full-Nervous-Mode/708853068594736552.html2016-01-13T18:03:00Z2016-01-13T18:03:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>During his final State of the Union address last night, President Obama seized the opportunity to lambast Republicans, particularly presidential candidates Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). However, it is the Republican rebuttal to the president&rsquo;s address, not Obama&rsquo;s comments, that is drawing criticism. Haley&rsquo;s address failed to rebut the President; in fact, her message echoed Obama so clearly CNN released a <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/12/politics/barack-obama-nikki-haley-state-of-the-union/" target="_blank">piece</a>, titled &ldquo;Who Said It: Nikki Haley or Barack Obama,&rdquo; highlighting their similarities. The South Carolina governor also jabbed candidates, like Donald Trump, saying, &ldquo;During anxious times, it can be tempting to follow the siren call of the angriest voices. We must resist that temptation.&rdquo;</p>
<p>On today&rsquo;s program, Ingraham responded to Haley&rsquo;s comments, claiming, &ldquo;I have never ever heard a Republican rebuttal to the State of the Union speech devoted in large part to trying to stop the momentum of a Republican running for office.&rdquo; Fox News&rsquo; Bret Baier joined Ingraham, analyzing the reasoning behind Gov. Haley&rsquo;s remarks. According to Baier, reality is sinking in for the GOP Establishment, putting them into &ldquo;full nervous mode&rdquo; over the possibility of a Trump or Cruz nomination. As a result of this fear, he explained, &ldquo;they&rsquo;re using every platform that they can to get the message out that they don&rsquo;t fully agree with how it&rsquo;s being presented or what&rsquo;s being talked about.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript <strong>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMzQ4Mw==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">***</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Nikki Haley was on the Today Show and Lauer played the sound bite from her where she talked about the country needing to be more inclusive. Again, she was talking about the Republicans. Again this was a rebuttal to the State of the Union and there was a big chunk of it devoted to what the Republican Party I guess, again, veiled references to Trump and Cruz on the issue of immigration. Let&rsquo;s go to the tenth soundbite, Mike.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">I&rsquo;ve never in my life, never in my life, I have never ever heard a Republican rebuttal to the State of the Union speech devoted in large part to trying to stop the momentum of a Republican running for office. I just have never heard that. I&rsquo;ve heard that in other speeches and other contexts, forums, that&rsquo;s fine. But, I&rsquo;ve never heard it in something that&rsquo;s supposed to rebut Obama, because in that, Bret, she was agreeing with Obama. (10:06)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Baier: </strong>You&rsquo;re right and we&rsquo;re in a different place now. I think the Establishment, or tie to the GOP party itself, is in full nervous mode about what they&rsquo;re seeing on the campaign trail and the reality that Donald Trump or Ted Cruz could be the nominee. And, it&rsquo;s sinking in So, I think they&rsquo;re using every platform that they can to get the message out that they don&rsquo;t fully agree with how it&rsquo;s being presented or what&rsquo;s being talked about. I think you&rsquo;re right, it&rsquo;s very interesting to use the Republican response to President Obama, who spent an hour impart lambasting Republicans, to pile on on that particular element. But, she, and others, feel pretty strongly about that. (11:25)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Have you ever heard a Democrat response to a Republican State of the Union focus on what&rsquo;s wrong in the Democrat Party? The ancillary loud voices and the far left of the Democrat Party and how they need to be more responsible? I just never hear the Democrats eating their own when the Democrats are on the ropes. I always see the Democrats banning together or trying to appeal to all the voices in their party or trying to compromise with them. I just don&rsquo;t hear that same condemnation of Democrat voices neither from Hillary nor from Sanders. (12:18)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Baier: </strong>No, you&rsquo;re right. And, I don&rsquo;t think I can remember one. And, I think in formal speeches, you&rsquo;re right. They hold the line as a party. They do have problems now. I mean, when you have Chelsea Clinton out on the trail attacking Bernie Sanders, you know the Clinton campaign is in full worry mode about Iowa and New Hampshire. (12:54)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Baier:-Establishment-in-Full-Nervous-Mode/708853068594736552.htmlStaff2016-01-13T18:03:00ZCosta: Establishment 'Knives Are Out' Against CruzStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Costa:-Establishment-Knives-Are-Out-Against-Cruz/-388038587805150225.html2016-01-12T17:22:00Z2016-01-12T17:22:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, Bob Costa, national political reporter for the Washington Post, discussed the two GOP frontrunners, Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). Trump recently launched attacks against Ted Cruz, questioning his eligibility for the presidency. Ingraham pointed out the GOP Establishment does not seem to be in a rush to come to Cruz&rsquo;s rescue on this issue; in fact, she suggested they seem to be enjoying Trump keeping the issue alive. &ldquo;As someone who covers the Republican Establishment,&rdquo; Costa agreed, claiming the Establishment&rsquo;s &ldquo;glee about this episode is striking.&rdquo; He traced the animosity towards Cruz back to the shutdown in 2013, which Costa covered at the time, suggesting that, after alienating himself, the Texas senator was never able to repair relationships in the Senate and with his Republican colleagues.</p>
<p>Costa also addressed the upcoming GOP debate, which will take place January 14th on Fox Business Network. He predicted the dynamic on the main stage will be different than previous debates; rather than focusing on Rubio-Cruz or Jeb-Trump, Costa advised viewers to keep their eyes on Trump-Cruz. Watching their interaction, particularly how Cruz responds to the billionaire, the reporter claimed, &ldquo;is going to tell us a lot about Cruz and lot about Cruz&rsquo;s strategy.&rdquo; Costa conceded, however, &ldquo;Regardless of whether you love Trump or you hate Trump, covering him as a reporter, this is a political talent.&rdquo; Given Trump&rsquo;s &ldquo;natural affinity&rdquo; for the media Costa suggested it will be particularly interesting to see how the duo interact on the stage Thursday night.</p>
<p>Partial Transcript <a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMzQ3MQ==" target="_blank">[<strong>LISTEN</strong>]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">***</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>The moments you&rsquo;re going to be looking for in this debate are what? Is it going to be Rubio-Cruz? Is it going to be Jeb-Trump again? Is it going to be the same dynamic that we saw last time between the two of them? (6:20)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Costa: </strong>Not exactly. I&rsquo;m looking especially at Trump and Cruz. I mean, Trump has been talking about the Canada birth for Cruz for over a week. And, how Cruz responds to this is going to tell us a lot about Cruz and lot about Cruz&rsquo;s strategy. His people tell me they still believe they can get those Trump voters should Trump fade away at some point. But, it&rsquo;s going to be very important for Ted Cruz to win Iowa and to win it strong and we see his numbers narrowing there with Trump. It&rsquo;s going to see how Cruz handles any kind of mention. But, Trump may not even bring it up, so we&rsquo;ll have to see. The other thing I&rsquo;m looking at, Laura, is the Rubio thing. Everyone is going to pile on Rubio, I think. &nbsp;(6:31)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>He&rsquo;s still the Establishment favorite, there&rsquo;s no doubt about it. Even with Chris Christie doing somewhat better in new Hampshire Rubio is still the golden child for the establishment. He&rsquo;s their second to last hope, and then maybe Christie is as well. (7:14)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Costa: </strong>I mean, this is Trump&rsquo;s advantage. He knows how to function at a high level, in a 24-7 media environment, to do it with self deprecating remarks, with a little charm. Regardless of whether you love Trump or you hate Trump, covering him as a reporter, this is a political talent. The someone who, the only one he resembles to me, is Bill Clinton in the way he handles people, the way he handles press. He has a natural affinity for the formats. (10:22)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham:</strong> It looks like the Establishment is not coming - the GOP Establishment - is not coming to the rescue of Ted Cruz. Of course, he has delighted over the last few years of sticking his fingers in the eyes of the Establishment. But, they&rsquo;re not coming to his rescue on this citizen birth question. It&rsquo;s almost like they&rsquo;re enjoying Trump&rsquo;s holding this issue or keeping it alive so they can say, oh, we&rsquo;re just not going to comment on the ongoing . . . And, of course, John McCain&rsquo;s comments where he said, well, this could be a problem. And, it&rsquo;s pretty clear McCain is going to endorse Rubio. So, the Establishment, I think, relishing in this moment of Cruz. (13:30)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Costa: </strong>Oh, they are. As someone who covers the Republican Establishment, they&rsquo;re glee about this episode is striking to me. It takes me back to 2013, Laura, I was covering that shut down and Cruz really alienating himself within the United States Senate and within the Republican Conference. And, I don&rsquo;t think those relationships have ever been repaired. Three years later, the knives are out. (14:07)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 60px;">&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Costa:-Establishment-Knives-Are-Out-Against-Cruz/-388038587805150225.htmlStaff2016-01-12T17:22:00ZSen. Shelby: Congress Should 'Absolutely Not' Vote on TPP During Lame DuckStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Sen.-Shelby:-Congress-Should-Absolutely-Not-Vote-on-TPP-During-Lame-Duck/850424128121189346.html2016-01-11T17:48:00Z2016-01-11T17:48:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Earlier this week, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Asia subcommittee, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) <a href="http://insidetrade.com/daily-news/sherman-tpp-vote-likely-lame-duck-due-lack-political-constraints">announced </a>he believes Congress will not vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) before the November elections due to public opposition, which suggests a vote during the lame duck session. Today on <em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) discussed his staunch opposition to this plan, which he claims explains, &ldquo;why there&rsquo;s so much frustration in America with a lot of working people in the Republicans.&rdquo; Shelby elaborated on the 5,500 page trade deal, emphatically stating, &ldquo;I don&rsquo;t believe this is going to be good for America, good for American manufacturers, good for American workers.&rdquo; It is no secret Republican voters believe Congress &ldquo;should stand up and do better&rdquo; and, the senator explained, this horrendous, controversial trade deal is yet another example of the chasm between the people and their representatives.</p>
<p>Partial Transcript [<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMzQ2MQ==" target="_blank"><strong>LISTEN</strong></a>]</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>The people are angry and they think that Congress is not doing enough to stand up against Obama. Now, how do you react to this? How do you react to the people&rsquo;s fury over immigration, over these trade deals. You and I have talked about these trade deals before, I hear they&rsquo;re trying to push this TPP thing through lame duck session after the election. I&rsquo;m getting the rumblings about that, senator. So, tell me where you are on this. (5:07)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Shelby: </strong>I&rsquo;m agreeing with you, what your basic premise is. The frustration of the people comes from lack of what they see happening in Washington. We&rsquo;ve got control of the Senate. We&rsquo;ve got control of the House. They&rsquo;re 54 Republicans, yet we&rsquo;re stalled up here. And, we&rsquo;re stalled, basically, because we haven&rsquo;t moved the legislative process to 51 votes. Harry Reid moved the nomination process from 60 to 51. We should do this. We should electrify our base. Make the president sign a veto on legislation. (5:35 )</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>So, I got another piece today a friend of mine sent me indicating again that the TPP, 5,500 pages long, which is filled with all sorts of goodies for the lobbyists, that Republicans are thinking of working with Democrats to ram this thing though during a lame duck session after the presidential election. Do you, Richard Shelby, favor voting on this during a lame duck session? Yes or no? (6:30)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Shelby: </strong>Absolutely not. I voted against that to begin with. There are so many secret protocols in that. I don&rsquo;t believe this is going to be good for America, good for American manufacturers, good for American workers. That leads me to why there&rsquo;s so much frustration in America with a lot of working people in the Republicans. They think we should stand up and do better, and this is an example of that. (6:59)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Sen.-Shelby:-Congress-Should-Absolutely-Not-Vote-on-TPP-During-Lame-Duck/850424128121189346.htmlStaff2016-01-11T17:48:00ZREPORT: U.S. Entrusts UNHCR With Vetting Syrian RefugeesStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/REPORT:-U.S.-Entrusts-UNHCR-With-Vetting-Syrian-Refugees/951219582656453210.html2016-01-11T17:43:00Z2016-01-11T17:43:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>According to a new<a href="http://cis.org/Rush-UN-Role-US-Refugee-Resettlement" target="_blank"> report</a> by Center for Immigration Studies, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNCHR), not U.S. officials, are entrusted with the entire selection and pre-screening process for Syrian refugees eligible for resettlement in the U.S. Hearing after hearing, government officials have guaranteed Americans -<a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/israel_the_middle_east/most_say_no_to_syrian_refugees_in_their_state" target="_blank"> 60%</a> of whom oppose the resettlement of Syrian refugees in their states - that these refugees are subject to rigorous screening. It is no wonder, however, Americans are skeptical of these claims as even FBI director, James Comey, has admitted there is no way to vet these individuals.</p>
<p>The new report delves into the vetting process, confirming, the U.S. government &ldquo;not only provides funds to UNHCR and relies on its staff to properly assist Syrian refugees in the region, it is depending on them for refugee status determinations and resettlement referrals.&rdquo; Knowing the United States is relying on the UNHCR to, essentially, <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-u.n.-picking-which-syrian-refugees-to-let-in-become-u.s.-citizens/article/2580092" target="_blank">deciding</a> &ldquo;not only who can move to the US, it's also choosing who gets a chance to become American,&rdquo; the report investigated how the UNHCR&rsquo;s process operates. The guidelines show incredibly low standards, listing just two preconditions for resettlement consideration:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><em>First, the applicant should be determined by UNHCR to be a refugee. Second, resettlement should be identified as the most appropriate solution after all durable solutions are assessed.</em></p>
<p>The study also investigated the number of UNHCR staff per refugee, concluding that with 2,038 staff members for 4,390,439 refugees, that equals approximately 2,154 refugees per staff member. These staff members are responsible for humanitarian care, interviewing people, checking and recording available documents, and providing refugee status; however, it is clear one staff member could not thoroughly investigate the background of nearly 3,000 refugees. Therefore, it is not surprising, that these Syrian nationals benefited from a "group determination" of refugee status.</p>
<p>Nayla Rush, author of the report, advised the administration to, &ldquo;come up with different talking points to persuade the American people of the reliability of the U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program. Or, better yet, it can suspend the program until dependable vetting measures are found.&rdquo;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/REPORT:-U.S.-Entrusts-UNHCR-With-Vetting-Syrian-Refugees/951219582656453210.htmlStaff2016-01-11T17:43:00ZDershowitz Denounces Political Correctness on CampusesStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Dershowitz-Denounces-Political-Correctness-on-Campuses/197677136877851648.html2016-01-08T22:59:00Z2016-01-08T22:59:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today's show, Alan Dershowitz, a law professor at Harvard University, assailed the culture of political correctness on college campuses. His remarks follow a string of protests at campuses across the country with calls for &ldquo;safe-spaces&rdquo; and increased diversity; recently, Dershowitz has taken heat for suggesting students hoping to study in a &ldquo;safe space&rdquo; should simply steer clear of universities. Dershowitz, a self-proclaimed liberal, elaborated on his view, explaining, &ldquo;if a place is open to the public, there's is nothing wrong with tape recording or quoting what goes on in there.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Professor Dershowitz also discussed the large and growing number of new departments - immigrant studies, women&rsquo;s studies, etc. - on college campuses. He designed his own rule, advising, &ldquo;you can have a Jewish studies department but you can't take any classes in it if you're Jewish.&nbsp; You can have a women's studies department but you can't take any classes if you're a women.&nbsp; You can have a black studies department, but no blacks are allowed.&rdquo; Following this rule, he explained, prevents students from going through several years of college studying only their own cultural group. This type of identity politics, Dershowitz lamented, is &ldquo;a very dangerous implicit form of censorship.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript: [<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMzQ1OQ==" target="_blank"><strong>LISTEN</strong></a>]</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Dershowitz:</strong> My view is that if a place is open to the public, if everybody can come in, then there is nothing wrong with tape recording or quoting what goes on in there.&nbsp; Whether it's a Mosque, whether it's a classroom, whether it's anything else.&nbsp; If you and I want to have a private conversation nobody has the right to intrude without a warrant, but if I make a speech in a classroom or in a public domain where people are allowed to walk in and walk out there is no right not to have that speech recorded, not to have the content of that speech disclosed, and not to make it part of the market place of ideas. (10:06)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham:</strong> Now it seems like it&rsquo;s actually gotten worse on college campuses with the microaggression, the macroaggression.&nbsp; Anytime someone says some else is fat, or you&rsquo;re stupid, or anything offensive not offensive. (10:43)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham:</strong> Before we let you go, professor, what is your view on all the proposed, actually they're demanding all these new studies departments at universities.&nbsp; Now there's immigrant studies about the plight of the illegal immigrants. &nbsp;(13:16)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Dershowitz:</strong> I have a rule.&nbsp; The rule is you can have a Jewish studies department but you can't take any classes in it if you're Jewish.&nbsp; You can have a women's studies department but you can't take any classes if you're a women.&nbsp; You can have a black studies department, but no blacks are allowed.&nbsp; You cannot go to college and study yourself.&nbsp; You cannot go to college and limit yourself to studying your own culture.&nbsp; I think that has been a disaster on colleges and universities to have these self-referential departments, and there are people you go through three of the four years of college studying only their own group and I don't like it.&nbsp; It's identity politics and it creates a very bad<strong> </strong>atmosphere for the future.&nbsp; And, students do it in the name of multiculturalism.&nbsp; They're not interested in multiculturalism or diversity of ideas they just want more people like themselves. And it's not critical.&nbsp; You can't do women's studies and critique the feminist movement, or black studies and critique, or Jewish studies and critique, you can't do it.&nbsp; And, that's why it's a very dangerous implicit form of censorship. (13:29)</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Dershowitz-Denounces-Political-Correctness-on-Campuses/197677136877851648.htmlStaff2016-01-08T22:59:00ZCruz: Washington Establishment In 'Utter Panic'Staffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Cruz:-Washington-Establishment-In-Utter-Panic/-472021748914506536.html2016-01-08T18:09:00Z2016-01-08T18:09:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on <em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) reacted to Sen. McCain, who expressed concern over Cruz&rsquo;s eligibility for president yesterday. Cruz was not surprised by his colleague&rsquo;s comment, claiming, &ldquo;everyone knows that John McCain is going to endorse Marco Rubio.&rdquo; Earlier this week, Cruz predicted the Gang of 8 would stick together in the upcoming election by supporting Sen. Rubio, a member of the team that worked to push through the immigration reform bill Cruz fought against. Cruz elaborated on McCain&rsquo;s attacks, explaining, &ldquo;it&rsquo;s no surprise that he sees the candidate he wants to support is not having the traction he would like.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Not just Sen. McCain, Cruz continued, but the entire Washington Establishment is in &ldquo;utter panic&rdquo; as he and billionaire Donald Trump continue to lead the GOP field. Cruz credited voters with being &ldquo;far too sophisticated&rdquo; and &ldquo;far too educated&rdquo; to allow the Establishment to continue feeding them empty lies. Instead, Cruz said, conservatives are asking candidates to &ldquo;show [them] when you&rsquo;ve stood up, not just against a Democrat, but to leaders in our own party.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Most importantly, Cruz stressed the importance of uniting all conservatives across the country, predicting, &ldquo;if conservatives come together, we win.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMzQ0OQ==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>What of the role of faith in this 2016 campaign? Why are you a better fit with Evangelicals than Marco Rubio? (1:28)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Cruz: </strong>Well, look, I think what all voters are looking for is someone who speaks the truth. And, with respect to Christians, our values are under assault right now. We&rsquo;re seeing life and marriage under assault. We&rsquo;re seeing religious liberty under assault. And, I do think that Evangelical voters, like every other voter, are tired of what I call campaign conservatives, which are just people who talk a good game on the trail, but haven&rsquo;t walked the walk. And, they&rsquo;re looking for consistent conservatives. They&rsquo;re looking for, as the scriptures say, you shall know them by their fruits. And, the reason that we are seeing conservatives uniting behind our campaign - we&rsquo;re seeing it in Iowa and we&rsquo;re seeing it all across the country - is because I&rsquo;ve got a proven record as a fiscal conservative, a social conservative, a national security conservative, of standing and fighting for our freedom, for our Constitutional liberties. That&rsquo;s what I have done in the Senate and that&rsquo;s exactly what I&rsquo;ll do as president. (1:35)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Were you surprised that old John McCain was bringing up the citizenship thing yesterday, the day before, saying&hellip; He just can&rsquo;t stand you. I&rsquo;m sorry, he can&rsquo;t stand you. It&rsquo;s obvious. I don&rsquo;t know why he would go there. (2:38)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Cruz: </strong>Well, actually, I wasn&rsquo;t surprised at all. I mean, look, everyone knows that John McCain is going to endorse Marco Rubio. They agree on foreign policy, almost exactly the same. Their views on immigration are the same. And, so, it&rsquo;s no surprise that he sees the candidate he wants to support is not having the traction he would like. So, he&rsquo;s attacking me and that&rsquo;s politics. I&rsquo;m not surprised at it. What we&rsquo;ve seen, and it&rsquo;s really striking if you think about it, Laura, three weeks ago, just about every Republican candidate in the field was attacking Donald Trump. Today, just about every Republican candidate in the field is attacking me. That&rsquo;s kind of suggesting something has changed. And, from our perspective, we&rsquo;re going to keep doing what we&rsquo;ve been doing every day for ten months, which is working one day at a time to earn the votes here on the ground in Iowa. We&rsquo;re here on a 28 county bus tour through the snows of Iowa. And, working to unite conservatives because, if conservatives come together, we win. (2:52)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Do you think at this point, given how many Establishment candidates still remain in the race, that it&rsquo;s better for you and Trump to kind of work together until maybe it&rsquo;s down to the two of you? Then maybe you can duke it out, but for now, I mean, and to me it just seems like they&rsquo;re the problem for the country. And, the two of you against the Establishment is a powerful symbol. And, I know you&rsquo;re competing against each other, but you know what I mean. Kind of the more rough and tumble stuff. To me, that&rsquo;s the right strategy for both of you. (4:01)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Cruz: </strong>Well, there is no doubt that the Washington Establishment is in utter panic right now. They&rsquo;re confused and angry and they do not understand, because they believed that they could keep giving the same empty lies to voters. And, the voters would buy it. And, the voters are far too sophisticated, they&rsquo;re far too educated, and they&rsquo;ve been lied to. And, they&rsquo;re not interested in another Washington politician who doesn&rsquo;t tell the truth. They want someone, you know, this election every Republican says they&rsquo;ll stand up against Washington. Voters are asking, okay, when have you stood up against Washington? Don&rsquo;t give me talk on the trail about how tough you are taking on Washington, show me when you&rsquo;ve taken on Washington. Show me when you&rsquo;ve stood up, not just against a Democrat, but to leaders in our own party. With respect to Donald Trump, I like Donald. He&rsquo;s chosen to take shots my direction, I have not reciprocated. And, my approach to Donald is the same as everyone else, which is I&rsquo;m not going to engage in the food fight, the insults, the attacks. I&rsquo;m going to keep the focus where I think the American people want it, which is on the real problems facing this country - on bringing back jobs, growth, and opportunity. And, defending our constitutional rights. &nbsp;(4:30)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Cruz:-Washington-Establishment-In-Utter-Panic/-472021748914506536.htmlStaff2016-01-08T18:09:00ZTucker: Trump Courts Evangelicals, Establishment Leans Towards HillaryStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Tucker:-Trump-Courts-Evangelicals,-Establishment-Leans-Towards-Hillary/167675440083304230.html2016-01-07T18:40:00Z2016-01-07T18:40:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, Tucker Carlson, editor-in-chief of the Daily Caller, discussed Marco Rubio&rsquo;s latest ad, which signaled an effort to court the Evangelical vote as the Iowa caucus approaches. Rubio&rsquo;s attempt to reach out to this community comes as the latest NBC poll reveals Trump has the highest support in the nation among white, Evangelical voters. Carlson was not surprised by Rubio&rsquo;s attempt to sway Evangelicals as is doing this because &ldquo;the Evangelicals are a pretty large proportion of the Republican electorate and you&rsquo;ve got to let them know you&rsquo;re on their side.&rdquo; However, he was fascinated by Trump&rsquo;s lead among this group as the billionaire is not, himself, an Evangelical. He suggested these voters are &ldquo;not supporting [Trump] because his personal life is a model of Christian rectitude,&rdquo; but that despite differences in beliefs, they they are looking for protection from bureaucrats and political correctness and believe Trump is the only guy strong enough to protect them. At the end of the day, Carlson said, Evangelical voters, &ldquo;don't want to hear your testimony right now, they want to know that you're strong enough to protect them the commissars of culture who would crush you for your belief.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Carlson also addressed the Republican donor class, specifically Brad Freeman and Ron Spogli, who Ingraham said reportedly raised their hands at a private dinner, saying they would vote for Hillary if Trump wins the Republican nomination. At the end of the day, Carlson admitted, this donor class has, &ldquo;much more in common fundamentally with Hillary than they do with Trump.&rdquo; This ground understands, Carlson explained, &ldquo;Trump is a traitor to their class, he's a whistleblower on their activities and he's the one who is going to give them the roughest ride if he's elected, so of course they would vote for Hillary.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMzQzNw==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>I want to play for you a new commercial that, a new ad that Marco Rubio put out, I guess yesterday, and it&rsquo;s an effort to court the Evangelical vote after we now learn in the new NBC poll that just came out that Trump has the highest support in the nation among white, Evangelical voters at 33%.&nbsp; He also leads among men with 39%, and among women with 29%.&nbsp; And, so a lot of these guys with Evangelical ties, they need to kind of burnish their credentials with the Evangelicals and this is how Marco did it.&rdquo; What about that? (9:53)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">Why do you think Rubio is doing this? Why is he doing this? (11:42)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Carlson: </strong>Well, he's doing it because he understands -correctly, I'm not even attacking Rubio, I just don't like him personally - but, he understands that the Evangelicals are still, you know, a pretty large proportion of the Republican electorate and you've got to let them know you're on their side.&nbsp; What I find so fascinating is Trump is about as far from Evangelical as you can get. I mean<strong> </strong>look at his life, I'm not attacking him, but let&rsquo;s be honest, he&rsquo;s not an Evangelical. (11:44)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham:</strong> But, they love America too. They love America, and they see America going down the tubes, they think people are bought off by big donors and they're tired of it, and I think people just want to turn this whole table over. (12:07)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Carlson: </strong>Yes, but they also know that, political correctness is threat to all of us, but it's especially an acute threat to Christians.&nbsp; Because they're the most out of step with the values of the people who run everything in New York, LA, and Washington. They're the most hated group in America by the elites. And, Trump, they understand he doesn't share their values in a lot of ways, they know that, come on, let&rsquo;s be real, but they know that he, they believe anyway, that he will protect them bureaucrats who want to crush them.&nbsp; They're looking for protection. They feel under attack, and, by the way, they should. They think that Trump is the only guy strong enough to protect them, and I think it's a really good reason to support him.&nbsp; They're not supporting him because his personal life is a model of Christian rectitude, it&rsquo;s not.&nbsp; I mean, like let&rsquo;s just stop pretending, it&rsquo;s not. He's been married three times, or whatever.&nbsp; But they don't care about that, they don't want to hear your testimony right now, they want to know that you're strong enough to protect them the commissars of culture who would crush you for your belief.&nbsp; And, there are a lot of those people running around and they have more power than they've ever had and it's terrifying. (12:20)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Right. So, the donors, Brad Freeman and Ron Spogli out in Los Angeles, and I know them both, when the New York Times reported that both of them raised their hand at a private dinner and said that they would vote for Hillary if Trump was the nominee.&nbsp; You think when push comes to shove, if Trump is the nominee they really will support Hillary, or will they, as many are predicting, grudgingly united behind Trump? (15:12)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Carlson: </strong>I think they have much more in common fundamentally with Hillary than they do with Trump.&nbsp; They aren't stupid, they see that Trump really is a threat to their power. Yes, they probably have legitimate concerns about Trump too, which, I think are real concerns, personally.&nbsp; But, basically they know that Trump is a traitor to their class, he's a whistleblower on their activities and he's the one who is going to give them the roughest ride if he's elected, so of course they would vote for Hillary, why wouldn't they, it's in their interest, Hillary is a total corporatist she's not a revolutionary. They know that she doesn't mean anything that she says.&nbsp; She's totally transactional, they know that. (15:41)</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Tucker:-Trump-Courts-Evangelicals,-Establishment-Leans-Towards-Hillary/167675440083304230.htmlStaff2016-01-07T18:40:00ZTRUMP: GOP Establishment Trying to Manipulate MarcoStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/TRUMP:-GOP-Establishment-Trying-to-Manipulate-Marco/-4551937819842362.html2016-01-07T16:20:00Z2016-01-07T16:20:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on&nbsp;<em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, Donald Trump reacted to claims the Republican Establishment is going to throw the race to Marco Rubio, a&nbsp;<a href="http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/24/538s-nate-silver-explains-establishment-will-throw-race-marco-rubio/" target="_blank">prediction</a>&nbsp;made by editor-in-chief of 538, Nate Silver.&nbsp;<strong>According to the front-runner, Rubio has earned the Establishment&rsquo;s affection because &ldquo;he needs money desperately.&rdquo; Trump stressed the benefits of his self-financed campaign, reminding voters he is the only candidate in either party who is not reliant on donors. The billionaire, who &ldquo;played the game for a long time,&rdquo; understands once donors give money to candidates, &ldquo;they will be given something, even if it&rsquo;s not to the benefit of the United States.&rdquo;</strong>&nbsp;Rubio&rsquo;s reliance on these big, globalist GOP donors, Trump explained, is not a result of his policy, but an attempt by the Establishment to manipulate the senator as a young, inexperienced businessman.</p>
<p>Trump also commented on Macy&rsquo;s, who announced yesterday they will be closing 36 stores and laying off 4,500 positions. The billionaire joked, &ldquo;from the time that we didn&rsquo;t make this deal, their stock went down,&rdquo; referencing the department store&rsquo;s decision to continue carrying his line last summer. &ldquo;The funny thing is,&rdquo; Trump said, &ldquo;if they&rsquo;d left those ties and shirts, they&rsquo;d be selling like hot cakes.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMzQzNQ==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Why do you think, Mr. Trump, that Nate Silver, a New York Times guru on electoral analysis and so forth, he explained recently how the GOP Establishment is going to try to throw the race to Marco Rubio with various moves to proportional delegates and so forth. Why do you think all of these big, globalist GOP donors are backing Rubio? What do they see in Rubio? (9:43)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Trump: </strong>Well, in my case, they have no control over me. And, in his case, he needs money desperately to run and to put ads up and everything else. I spend my own money and I have my own little group of people and I have offices. I don&rsquo;t need anyone&rsquo;s money. I fly around and I do my speeches and I have my meetings and I don&rsquo;t need anyone&rsquo;s money. They need money desperately to do all those things. And, once the people start giving them money, they control that person. They really control that person. Look, who knows this game better than me, I played the game a long time. And, these people give them money and when they have to see him in year from now or two years from now because they need something, they will be given something, even if it&rsquo;s not to the benefit of the United States. Even if it&rsquo;s a negative to the United States. (10:15)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>So, you think they think they can manipulate him as a young guy, he&rsquo;s never been in business&hellip; (11:00)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Trump: </strong>Oh, totally. Not even a young guy. I don&rsquo;t care if he&rsquo;s an old guy. Everybody except for me&hellip; I&rsquo;m the only one that&rsquo;s self funding. That&rsquo;s both Democrat and Republican. I&rsquo;m the only one. So, I&rsquo;m not controlled by anyone other than the people. I&rsquo;m controlled by the country because I want to do right for the country, that&rsquo;s why I&rsquo;m doing this whole thing. You know the theme - Make America Great Again. So, they&rsquo;re looking at Rubio. He desperately needs money to go on with his campaign. He&rsquo;s doing very mediocre, he&rsquo;s not doing great, I guess. (11:03)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>So, Macy&rsquo;s is closing 36 stores, laying off 4,500 positions. I was thinking a lot of stuff on Twitter, does this have anything to do with stopping selling the Trump line? Obviously, that&rsquo;s probably&hellip; (12:48)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Trump: </strong>Oh, it absolutely does. Once they stopped selling. . . You know, they were very disloyal to me, because I have a very successful tie and shirts and stuff. It&rsquo;s not a big thing for me, but still. And, as soon as they heard about illegal immigration, they said, oh, we&rsquo;re going to have some pickets. I said, so what? Let them pickett. They&rsquo;ll be there for a half hour, then they&rsquo;ll want to go to lunch. So, let them pickett. Oh, we don&rsquo;t want to have pickets. They were very, very disloyal. I Mean, unbelievably. You know the funny thing, if they&rsquo;d left those ties and shirts, they&rsquo;d be selling like hot cakes. &nbsp;(13:01)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Do you say, if they had the Trump line in place today, they wouldn&rsquo;t be laying off 4,500 workers? (13:32)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Trump: </strong>Well, you know, I kid when I say that, because it&rsquo;s not a big deal. Macy&rsquo;s is a big store, but they were very disloyal. i think they were disloyal to the country. Because, when you think about it, what am I doing? I&rsquo;m talking about illegal immigration, I&rsquo;m talking about a lot of good things for the country and I think Macy&rsquo;s &hellip; And, it&rsquo;s amazing because from the time that we didn&rsquo;t make this deal, their stock went down. (13:37)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/TRUMP:-GOP-Establishment-Trying-to-Manipulate-Marco/-4551937819842362.htmlStaff2016-01-07T16:20:00ZDavis Debunks "Gun Show Loophole" MythStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Davis-Debunks-Gun-Show-Loophole-Myth/-524705347676618149.html2016-01-06T18:13:00Z2016-01-06T18:13:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Yesterday, President Obama announced his new executive action on gun control, which seeks to expand the background check system and provide increased funding for mental health treatment. As the Left continues to push their gun control agenda, they continue to stress the importance of closing the &ldquo;gun show loophole.&rdquo; On today&rsquo;s program, Sean Davis, <em>The Federalist</em>, debunked this myth, explaining this loophole does not, in fact, exist. What does exist, he explained, is a federal exemption for sales between two private, non-FFL residents of the same state, regardless of whether that transaction happens at a gun show or not. Therefore, according to Davis, this new executive order is &ldquo;not meaningful at all" and "doesn't do anything&rdquo; because, for all Obama's talk about ending the &ldquo;gun show loophole&rdquo; and stopping the online sales loophole, the President's executive action fails to address the existing federal exemption.</p>
<p>Davis&rsquo; message echoes Clayton Cramer, a prominent American historian and writer on gun rights, who was on the program earlier this week. On the topic of background checks and their effectiveness in minimizing gun deaths, Cramer explained, &ldquo;What a lot of people don't realize is that there are quite a number of states that have mandatory background check requirements &hellip; for all transfers of either firearms or, in some cases, just a pistol.&rdquo; In fact, Cramer said, &ldquo;a number of states like California, Illinois adopted such requirements and murder rates in California rose 11% in the five years after they adopted the law, and Illinois went up 49%&rdquo;. Very few states that adopted the law saw murder rates decline, leading Cramer to conclude that these requirements are only a &ldquo;distraction from solving the underlying problems.&rdquo; &nbsp;Cramer suggested this may be because, for many gun control advocates, it is more about making themselves feel &ldquo;morally superior&rdquo; than others. &nbsp;</p>
<p>&ldquo;If background checks make such an enormous difference,&rdquo; Cramer asked, &ldquo;why hasn't it worked in the states that have already tried this?&rdquo;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Davis-Debunks-Gun-Show-Loophole-Myth/-524705347676618149.htmlStaff2016-01-06T18:13:00ZChristie: No Doubt Obama Ill-Intentioned on Gun ControlStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Christie:-No-Doubt-Obama-Ill-Intentioned-on-Gun-Control/-186182577457479854.html2016-01-06T18:10:00Z2016-01-06T18:10:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) reacted to President Obama&rsquo;s executive action on gun control. Donald Trump, among others, has said the President has good intentions, but the wrong approach, when it comes to gun control. This sentiment has been echoed by many, including Mark Halperin, who was &ldquo;touched&rdquo; by Obama&rsquo;s tears and emotion during yesterday&rsquo;s address. Christie, however, passionately disagreed, saying &ldquo;I don&rsquo;t have any doubt that the President&rsquo;s intentions are not good on this subject.&rdquo; If Obama had his way and &ldquo;was the king he acts like at times,&rdquo; Christie claimed the President would have no problems becoming a gun confiscator&rdquo; and taking away guns from all Americans.</p>
<p>Turning the conversation towards law enforcement, Christie continued to blast the President&rsquo;s approach to gun control. Rather than focus all his emotions on victims of gun crime, Christie expressed concern over people in Chicago and New York, cities witnessing huge crime waves. The governor suggested rather than stripping Americans of their second amendment rights, we ought to be supporting law enforcement, which &ldquo;we didn&rsquo;t hear the President talk a lick about.&rdquo;</p>
<p>According to Christie, Sen. Marco Rubio is &ldquo;sliming his way to the White House&rdquo; with a series of new attack ads on the New Jersey governor. Christie, however, reiterated that this campaign is &ldquo;not [his] first rodeo,&rdquo; suggesting Marco&rsquo;s ads are a clear indicator of &ldquo;how inexperienced he is and how unprepared he is to be our candidate against someone like Hillary Clinton.&rdquo; Turning the conversation to the general election, Christie stressed Rubio, &ldquo;a first term U.S. senator who&rsquo;s never had a tough race in his life,&rdquo; would be unable to compete with the Democratic frontrunner, Hillary Clinton. In fact, he predicted Hillary would &ldquo;pat him on the head and cut his heart out.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMzQyNQ==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham:</strong> Trump last night, and others, said that the President has good intentions, but the wrong approach. What about the President&rsquo;s intentions? Are these good intentions? (8:43)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Christie:</strong> No, I think he&rsquo;s wrong about that. The President&rsquo;s intentions are ill-intentioned. If the President had his way and was the king that he acts like at times, than he would take away guns. I have no doubt about that. He would be a gun confiscator and he would think that would solve our problems in this country. So, I don&rsquo;t have any doubt that the President&rsquo;s intentions are not good on this subject. Now listen, everybody is upset about people who lose their lives to gun crime. But, I&rsquo;m upset about the people in Chicago who are going through a crime wave. At 18%, the murders are up. New York City, murders are up 11%. Why aren&rsquo;t we supporting law enforcement? We didn&rsquo;t hear the President talk a lick about that yesterday. (8:56)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Christie:</strong> This isn&rsquo;t my first rodeo and if Marco Rubio thinks by putting out a couple of negative ads on me that somehow he&rsquo;s going to intimidate me, it just shows how inexperienced he is and how unprepared he is to be our candidate against someone like Hillary Clinton. You want someone on that stage who has been through the wars. Not someone who&rsquo;s a first term U.S. senator who&rsquo;s never had a tough race in his life. This guy has been spoon fed every victory he&rsquo;s ever had in his life, is that the kind of person we want to put on the stage against Hillary Clinton? I don&rsquo;t think so. She&rsquo;ll pat him on the head and cut his heart out. (14:50)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Christie:-No-Doubt-Obama-Ill-Intentioned-on-Gun-Control/-186182577457479854.htmlStaff2016-01-06T18:10:00ZBaier to Jeb: It's Not Early AnymoreStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Baier-to-Jeb:-Its-Not-Early-Anymore/356435605588462876.html2016-01-05T17:40:00Z2016-01-05T17:40:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, Fox News&rsquo; Bret Baier joined to discuss the GOP field as candidates prepare for the Iowa caucus, which will take place in less than a month. Jeb Bush, the former Establishment sweetheart, still seems to be under the illusion that it is still early in the race for the nomination. Baier hit Bush with a bit of reality, saying &ldquo;It&rsquo;s not early anymore... it hasn&rsquo;t changed. And, if anything has changed, he and others have fallen off.&rdquo; In fact, Baier predicted &ldquo;pretty soon you&rsquo;re going to get to a race that looks like four people, and who those four are, we&rsquo;ll find out in the next four weeks.&rdquo;</p>
<p>The Special Report host will be moderating the upcoming Fox Business debate; to qualify for the main stage on January 14, candidates must either be among the top six nationally or the top five in either Iowa or New Hampshire. Though Baier was not part of deciding the debate criteria, he shared his own views, saying, &ldquo;At this point, the thought process in the criteria, and I&rsquo;m not part of that decision making, is that at this point you need to be in the top 7 to be up there. And, it does a disservice to people trying to get more information out of these candidates.&rdquo;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Baier-to-Jeb:-Its-Not-Early-Anymore/356435605588462876.htmlStaff2016-01-05T17:40:00ZDiGenova: Hillary Cannot be the NomineeStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/DiGenova:-Hillary-Cannot-be-the-Nominee/-354879794662342689.html2016-01-05T16:11:00Z2016-01-05T16:11:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, Joe DiGenova, former Republican U.S. attorney, addressed the FBI&rsquo;s ongoing investigation of Hillary Clinton. On New Year&rsquo;s Eve, another 5,500 pages of Clinton&rsquo;s emails were released; of these emails, 275 included classified information, bringing the total number of classified emails to 1,274. DiGenova noted this total does not include the emails the FBI is recovering from the Secretary&rsquo;s hard drive, meaning the actual total could be drastically higher. Though the investigation continues to unfold, DiGenova says the Bureau already "has so much information about criminal conduct by her and her staff that there is no way that they walk away from this."</p>
<p>As Clinton&rsquo;s campaign progresses, DiGenova made a shocking prediction, claiming &ldquo;Hillary will not make it to the finish line. She&rsquo;s not going to be able to complete her campaign.&rdquo; Following her interview with the FBI, which will be the final step of the Clinton investigation, DiGenova says the Bureau will make a recommendation that people be charged, leaving Attorney General Loretta Lynch with the &ldquo;decision of a lifetime.&rdquo; Though Ingraham expressed skepticism over Lynch&rsquo;s willingness to indict Hillary Clinton, DiGenova pointed to &ldquo;vitriol of an intense amount&rdquo; developing among the intelligence community who he claims will &ldquo;fight to the death&rdquo; to ensure Hillary and her senior staff are adequately punished for their mishandling of classified information. If Lynch did, however, buries this case, DiGenova warned, the intelligence community &ldquo;will never be able to charge another federal employee with the negligent handling of classified information.&rdquo; And, DiGenova &ldquo;the intelligence community will not stand for that. They will fight for indictment.&rdquo; Further, he claims that, according to two sources in the FBI, &ldquo;they are already in the process of gearing themselves to basically revolt if she refuses to bring charges.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Later in the show, Bret Baier, host of Special Report on Fox News, reacted to DiGenova&rsquo;s predictions, saying, &ldquo;If that happens, that would be astonishing...it would be earth shattering, if what Joe was saying is true.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMzQwOQ==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>DiGenova: </strong>Hillary Clinton&rsquo;s going to have problems because of what&rsquo;s in the emails, but also the classifications. Her biggest problem right now is the FBI. They&rsquo;re not going away. They have reached a critical mass in their investigation of the Secretary and all of her senior staff. And, it&rsquo;s going to come to a head, I would suggest, in the next sixty days. And, I predict Hillary will not make it to the finish line. She&rsquo;s not going to be able to complete her campaign. The criminal investigation must focus on her and all the people around her. And, if Jim Comey, the FBI director, is doing his job, which I expect him to do as an honorable man, she cannot be the nominee of the Democratic Party. She&rsquo;s going to have to be charged with the crime. It&rsquo;s going to be a very complex matter for the Department of Justice, but they&rsquo;re not going to be able to walk away from it. She and her staff have committed numerous federal crimes involving the negligent and improper handling of classified information. They are now at over 1,200 classified emails. And, that&rsquo;s just for the ones we know about from the State Department. That does not include the ones that the FBI is, in fact, recovering from her hard drives. &nbsp;(1:08)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>So, Hillary testifies on Capitol Hill and says she did not receive classified - did she say receive or send? You always have to parse the words with Hillary. That is false. Correct? (2:25)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>DiGenova: </strong>She has actually said both things. And, she&rsquo;s also then modified to say, none of them were marked classified. But, she has definitely made false statements, under oath, both in interviews and on Capitol Hill. She has not yet been interviewed by the FBI in their investigation. That will be the final step in her investigation. But, as a matter of fact, the Bureau has so much information about criminal conduct by her and her staff that there is no way that they walk away from this. They are going to make a recommendation that people be charged and then Loretta Lynch is going to have the decision of a lifetime. (2:42 )</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Do you have confidence that Loretta Lynch, from what we saw with her handling of the Baltimore riots and all that, is going to okay, green light an indictment of Hillary Clinton in an election year? (3:21)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>DiGenova: </strong>I believe that the evidence that the FBI is compiling will be so compelling that, unless she agrees to the charges, there will be a massive revolt inside the FBI, which she will not be able to survive as an Attorney General. It will be like Watergate. It will be unbelievable. The evidence against the Clinton staff and the Secretary is so overwhelming at this point that if, in fact, she chooses not to charge Hillary, they will never be able to charge another federal employee with the negligent handling of classified information. The intelligence community will not stand for that. They will fight for indictment and they are already in the process of gearing themselves to basically revolt if she refuses to bring charges. (3:34)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>There is vitriol of an intense amount developing - you can hear it in your conversations with people in the intelligence community - they will fight to the death if the Attorney General attempts to bury this case. It will be very, very ugly for her and it&rsquo;s going to be an awful ending to the Obama administration. But, one which they richly deserve. (5:26)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/DiGenova:-Hillary-Cannot-be-the-Nominee/-354879794662342689.htmlStaff2016-01-05T16:11:00ZObama Resumes Push for Gun Control, GOP Fights BackStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Obama-Resumes-Push-for-Gun-Control,-GOP-Fights-Back/-772861508451793275.html2016-01-04T17:54:00Z2016-01-04T17:54:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>As the new year begins, President Obama resumes his divisive push for gun control. The President announced his plan to use an executive order to force restrictive legislation down the throats of the American people. This legislation supposedly focuses on on minimizing the &ldquo;gun show loophole&rdquo; that has become such a focus for gun control advocates. In addition, it is anticipated the the President will tighten regulations on the reporting of lost or stolen guns. Although details of the executive order have not been released, the President will detail the plan during a live town hall, hosted by CNN&rsquo;s Anderson Cooper, this Thursday.</p>
<p>Although, according to a Gallup poll, 65% of Americans believe guns make homes safer, the President is moving forward with this executive action. In fact, in his weekly address, he accused supporters of the second amendment of being anti-children, stating, &ldquo;The gun lobby is loud and well organized in its defense of effortlessly available guns for anyone. The rest of us are going to have to be just as passionate and well organized in our defense of our kids.&rdquo;</p>
<p>The Republican frontrunner, Donald Trump, addressed the President&rsquo;s plans during his recent rally in Biloxi, Miss., stating, "We're not changing the Second Amendment. I will veto that. I will un-sign that so fast." Other GOP candidates, such as Gov. Christie (R-NJ) have also come out against the President&rsquo;s actions, accusing Obama of acting like a &ldquo;petulant child.&rdquo; Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has also promised to &ldquo;fight tooth and nail&rdquo; against the executive order, and has already introduced legislation in the Senate in an attempt to halt the President&rsquo;s actions.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Obama-Resumes-Push-for-Gun-Control,-GOP-Fights-Back/-772861508451793275.htmlStaff2016-01-04T17:54:00ZRand Won't Rule Out Working with TrumpStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Rand-Wont-Rule-Out-Working-with-Trump/374511794059778229.html2016-01-04T17:41:00Z2016-01-04T17:41:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>For months, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has been outspokenly critical of the Republican frontrunner, Donald Trump. Most recently, the Kentucky senator attacked the media&rsquo;s coverage of the billionaire, claiming the American people are &ldquo;being led by the nose and the news media is led by the nose to think that somehow Trump is going to win this because of these polls.&rdquo; However, on today&rsquo;s program, Sen. Paul failed to rule out the possibility of working with a hypothetical President Trump. Though he reiterated his intent to win the GOP nomination,</p>
<p>Despite leaving the door open for an eventual reconciliation with Trump, Sen. Paul still seems to misinterpret the root of Trump&rsquo;s success. Ingraham, pointing to Trump&rsquo;s latest rally in Biloxi, Mississippi, which drew 13,000 attendees. And, though Paul ceded people are unhappy with Washington, he attributed Trump&rsquo;s crowd to mere curiosity. Ingraham proceeded to advise the senator not to dismiss Trump&rsquo;s candidacy by granting the media credit for his success, warning, &ldquo;I just think you&rsquo;re doing yourself a disservice . . . there&rsquo;s something we have to learn from this to become better.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMzM5Nw==" target="_self">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>What&rsquo;s going on, Senator? All that you&rsquo;re saying to me makes perfect sense. It really does. So, why do 13,000 people show up in Biloxi, Mississippi on Saturday night? (9:30 )</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Paul: </strong>You know, I think curiosity. And, I think&hellip; (9:43)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Oh, come on. Curiosity, senator? They haven&rsquo;t seen enough of Donald Trump? (9:44)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Paul: </strong>Well, the thing is, and also this morning I turn on one of the news channels, he&rsquo;s on for 45 minutes straight. So, it&rsquo;s a self-reinforcing news cycle. But, we have a really lazy news apparatus, in the sense that it covers the same thing over and over again and they can&rsquo;t get enough of Trump. And, so, it has become a self-reinforcing prophecy at this point. (9:51)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>But, someone as smart as you, you&rsquo;re super smart, and I&rsquo;m not trying to suck up to you, I really believe that. You&rsquo;re super smart. And, I say the same thing to you as I would say to Rubio: There&rsquo;s something going on out there in the Party, right? And, I think on some issues you and he, and I&rsquo;m not saying his positions are all flushed out or they&rsquo;re all that clear sometimes, I agree with you on that, but you hit a certain stride with younger votes and independent voters - libertarians who like your message. He hits a stride with people who sometimes haven&rsquo;t voted and people just ticked off mad, they want to turn the table over in Washington.But, there&rsquo;s clearly something happening more than curiosity. So, I think for you, or Rubio, or Jeb just to throw your hands up, oh, the media created him, I just think you&rsquo;re doing yourself a disservice and, I&rsquo;m not saying you&rsquo;re doing it on purpose, but there&rsquo;s something we have to learn from this to become better. (10:17)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>What if he asked you to come work with him? (12:19)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Paul: </strong>I&rsquo;ve got, you know, quite a bit going on, running for president and&hellip; (12:21)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>After that, though. Let&rsquo;s say you don&rsquo;t win. I know you want to win. And, we adore you. But, let&rsquo;s say it doesn&rsquo;t work out. He could really be helped by you, and it maybe is how you have to serve the country. I know you don&rsquo;t want to think that and no one wants to think that, everyone wants to be president. I get it. But, what if your country is calling you in a different way, beyond just being a senator or a great doctor. (12:27)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Paul: </strong>Well, we&rsquo;ll cross all bridges when we get to them. And, I have an important role in the Senate, as well as my candidacy. &nbsp;(12:50)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Rand-Wont-Rule-Out-Working-with-Trump/374511794059778229.htmlStaff2016-01-04T17:41:00ZPoll Reveals Americans Believe Terrorists Are WinningStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Poll-Reveals-Americans-Believe-Terrorists-Are-Winning/-63536047684262908.html2015-12-28T22:59:00Z2015-12-28T22:59:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>A new CNN/ORC <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/28/politics/american-terrorists-poll-winning-cnn-orc/" target="_blank">poll </a>released Monday reveals Americans are more likely to say terrorists are winning the war against the U.S. than they have been at any point since the September 11 attacks.&nbsp;This dissatisfaction is not partisan, as a majority of both parties - 59% of Democrats and 86% of Republicans - expressed unease about the case prosecuted by the Obama administration. Further, nearly three-quarters of all Americans admitted they are not satisfied with how the war on terror is proceeding, which is well above the previous high of 61% who were dissatisfied in 2007. However, Republicans are more likely to believe the terrorists are winning, while most Democrats feel neither side has an advantage.</p>
<p>Luckily, Americans are holding onto hope that something can be done to win the war on terror. For the first time, a majority of Americans say the government is capable of preventing major attacks, if it works hard enough and effectively. Just 45% say that "terrorists will always find a way to launch major attacks no matter what the U.S. government does," down from about 6 in 10 who said so in most previous polling.</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Poll-Reveals-Americans-Believe-Terrorists-Are-Winning/-63536047684262908.htmlStaff2015-12-28T22:59:00ZClinton v. Trump: Too Close to CallStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Clinton-v.-Trump:-Too-Close-to-Call/844889840280492254.html2015-12-28T22:55:00Z2015-12-28T22:55:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>A new Rasmussen <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/clinton_vs_trump_still_a_dead_heat" target="_blank">poll</a>&nbsp;shows Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump essentially tied in a hypothetical 2016 match up. Among likely U.S. voters, 37% would vote for Clinton, while 36% would vote for the Donald. These numbers have barely changed since the October poll, which showed Trump leading against Hillary, 38-36. The latest poll also revealed just 75% of Democrats would vote for Clinton and 63% of Republicans would vote for Trump.</p>
<p>The poll follows a YouGov <a href="https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/12/28/pulse-debates-immigration-obama-new-year/" target="_blank">poll</a>, released last weekend, solidifying Trump's lead within the Republican Party. Despite talk about the rise of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Trump lead with 35%. Cruz came in second, with 19%, followed by Sen. Marco Rubio, with 14%. No other candidate was able to break double digits.&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Clinton-v.-Trump:-Too-Close-to-Call/844889840280492254.htmlStaff2015-12-28T22:55:00ZCruz: Rubio Betrayed VotersStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Cruz:-Rubio-Betrayed-Voters/-399701796564912285.html2015-12-18T18:46:00Z2015-12-18T18:46:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) addressed his opponent, Sen. Marco Rubio&rsquo;s (R-FL), record on immigration. According to Cruz, &ldquo;the Rubio campaign is trying to run as fast as they can away from his record of supporting amnesty and the Gang of Eight.&rdquo; However, he claimed the differences between his immigration policy and Rubio&rsquo;s are &ldquo;abundantly clear,&rdquo; as they differ on amnesty, citizenship, and legalization. And, of course, Cruz pointed to the Gang of Eight bill, which Rubio authored. The senator from Texas said, &ldquo;the simple reality is that he promised the men and women of Florida he would oppose amnesty in Washington, and as soon as he got here he got in bed with Chuck Schumer and Barack Obama and the big money in this town.&rdquo; Rubio&rsquo;s connections to big money in Washington are no secret; just today, Michelle Malkin released a <a href="http://www.creators.com/conservative/michelle-malkin/open-borders-money-backs-marco-rubio.html">column </a>detailing Rubio&rsquo;s connections to Facebook, Microsoft and Silicon Valley. It is this record that, Cruz pointed out, Rubio&rsquo;s campaign is trying to run away from.</p>
<p>Cruz also addressed the omnibus spending bill, which was passed by Congress today, calling it a &ldquo;complete an absolute betrayal of the men and women who elected us.&rdquo; Speaker Ryan and Mitch McConnell, Cruz said, are passing &ldquo;the Democrat agenda,&rdquo; feeding the anger and frustration among the American people. He offered a solution, stating &ldquo;the only answer to this is a strong conservative president who will fight and stand for principle.&rdquo; And, if elected, that&rsquo;s exactly what he intends to do.</p>
<p>Partial Transcript <a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMzMwMw==" target="_blank">[<strong>Listen</strong>]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">***</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Cruz: </strong>Well look, I think the Washington establishment is panicking right now, and their panicking because conservatives are uniting behind our campaign.&nbsp; You're right, the Rubio campaign is trying to run as fast as they can away from his record of supporting amnesty and the Gang of Eight, and what they're trying to do is confuse everyone, but things are very clear.&nbsp; What is abundantly clear is that I oppose amnesty, Marco Rubio supports amnesty.&nbsp; I oppose citizenship, Marco Rubio supports citizenship.&nbsp; I oppose legalization, supports legalization.&nbsp; I oppose the Gang of Eight, Marco Rubio authored the Gang of Eight.&nbsp; And everything else they're trying to throw, mud in the air to obscure things, it isn't working.&nbsp; The simple reality is that he promised the men and women of Florida he would oppose amnesty in Washington, and as soon as he got here he got in bed with Chuck Schumer and Barack Obama and the big money in this town and directly violated the promises he made to the men and women who elected us.&nbsp; And &hellip; and that's why they're trying to run away from that record right now. [1:05]</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham:</strong> Omnibus, I gotta get your take on this omnibus.&nbsp; You know the Republicans banded together with liberal Democrats to pass this thing today, your reaction quickly. &nbsp;[4:39]</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Cruz: </strong>&nbsp;Uh, it's a complete and absolute betrayal of the men and women who elected us.&nbsp; Normally you have two votes, either yes, or no, I am actually in Washington right now driving to the capital, I intend to vote, not yes or no, but hell no because this is &hellip; this is just &hellip; you know Chuck Schumer said this week, 'Mitch McConnell wants the Senate to work and the only way it can work is if they pass our agenda'.&nbsp; This is exactly right, this is Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan passing the Democrat agenda, funding Obama Care, funding amnesty, expanding low skill immigration so we're driving down wages, we're costing people jobs.&nbsp; It's an absolute betrayal, it's why people are furious and frustrated, and it's why, Laura, the only answer to this is a strong conservative president who will fight and stand for principle.&nbsp; That's exactly what I'll do and that's why conservatives are uniting behind our campaign. [4:47]</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Cruz:-Rubio-Betrayed-Voters/-399701796564912285.htmlStaff2015-12-18T18:46:00ZHuckabee: Mr. Ryan, This is EmbarrassingStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Huckabee:-Mr.-Ryan,-This-is-Embarrassing/565784056592153008.html2015-12-17T16:10:00Z2015-12-17T16:10:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>House Speaker Paul Ryan announced Wednesday that the chamber will vote tomorrow on the $1.14 trillion end-of-the year spending bill. The legislation, which was released at 2 a.m. Tuesday night, has sparked outrage among conservatives; the 2,009 page bill does not contain measures restricting the Syrian refugee program, ending funding for Obama&rsquo;s executive actions on immigration, or defunding Planned Parenthood. Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) reacted to this horrendous deal, saying, &ldquo;<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMzI5Mw==" target="_blank">The rest of America and all conservatives just got screwed horribly in this deal and Paul Ryan wants us to stand up and applaud.</a>&rdquo; According to Huckabee, Ryan, who has been urging Republicans to unify behind the legislation, has, in his short time as Speaker, &ldquo;shown tone-deafness to the mood of Republicans, conservatives, and working class Democrats who are getting kicked in the gut.&rdquo;</p>
<p>There is nothing in the proposed spending bill for conservatives, Huckabee explained; instead &ldquo;Obama gets his refugees. Planned Parenthood gets funding. Obamacare gets funding. Everything we hate, they get.&rdquo; The Arkansas governor specifically addressed the provision to quadruple the H-2B visas for unskilled workers. Policies, like this one, Huckabee said, &ldquo;are the reason many Americans aren&rsquo;t going to have much of a Christmas this year.&rdquo; He offered advice to Congress, suggesting, &ldquo;fighting for American workers, rather than fighting to keep American workers from every getting another paycheck.&rdquo;</p>
<p><br /> Unable to conceal his anger, Huckabee labeled Ryan&rsquo;s budget deal &ldquo;an embarrassment to our Party&rdquo; and &ldquo;an embarrassment to our country.&rdquo; And, he argued, &ldquo;If this is the best they can do, then we&rsquo;ve got to get new leadership, because this is embarrassing.&rdquo;&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Huckabee:-Mr.-Ryan,-This-is-Embarrassing/565784056592153008.htmlStaff2015-12-17T16:10:00ZSorry, Jeb. Trump's A Serious Candidate.Staffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Sorry,-Jeb.-Trumps-A-Serious-Candidate./-746431154791252903.html2015-12-16T17:46:00Z2015-12-16T17:46:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on <em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie reflected on Tuesday night&rsquo;s debate, the fifth and final Republican debate of 2015. Last night, Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL) accused Donald Trump of not being a &ldquo;serious candidate.&rdquo; Christie disagreed with Bush suggesting, &ldquo;Maybe Jeb and I were listening to different things.&rdquo; He credited Trump with &ldquo;giving voice to the real concerns of a lot of Americans&rdquo; and argued any candidate ought to be addressing and acknowledging these concerns if they hope to secure a victory in 2016.</p>
<p>Christie also addressed the clash between Rubio and Cruz during Tuesday night&rsquo;s GOP debate. This exchange, Christie said, effectively revealed Marco&rsquo;s record, which staunchly contradicts what he&rsquo;s saying now. However, he admitted he stayed out of the conversation as &ldquo;nine people on the stage, you have to pick when you&rsquo;re going to jump in and interrupt. And, that, to me, didn&rsquo;t seem like a moment when I had to do that.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMzI4MQ==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Marco Rubio and Cruz went back and forth on immigration. You stayed out of that. Why? (3:58 )</p>
<p><strong>Christie: </strong>Because, I think it was one of those esoteric fights between the two of them. And, in my view, everyone knows what my position is. people know that I&rsquo;m for securing the border, they know that I&rsquo;m for common sense ways to do it. (4:02)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Everyone says that, governor. &nbsp;(4:17)</p>
<p><strong>Christie: </strong>Right. Well, they do. Except Marco apparently has a record that contradicts what he&rsquo;s saying now and I thought that Senator Cruz was pointing that out fairly effectively last night. So, that was a very interesting exchange, I think it showed a lot of things about Marco Rubio and his record on immigration that they didn&rsquo;t know before. And, so, again, with nine people on the stage, you have to pick when you&rsquo;re going to jump in and interrupt. And, that, to me, didn&rsquo;t seem like a moment when I had to do that. &nbsp;(4:18)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>At the debate last night, Jeb called Donald Trump &lsquo;the chaos&rsquo; candidate, &lsquo;not serious.&rsquo; You&rsquo;re not a serious man, in other words, that&rsquo;s what he was saying. Is that right? Is he a chaos candidate? And, is he not a serious candidate? (9:40)</p>
<strong>Christie: </strong>He looks like a serious candidate to me. And, I&rsquo;ll always said all along, having known Donald Trump for 13 years on a personal level, that Donald will be a serious candidate for the presidency if he wants to be. And, he sounded serious to me last night. So, maybe Jeb and I were listening to different things. But, fact is, Donald is giving voice to the real concerns of a lot of Americans and those concerns need to be heard and acknowledged and addressed by anybody who seriously believes they can be a candidate for president of the United STates for our party and defeat Hillary Clinton in the fall. &nbsp;(9:54)
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Sorry,-Jeb.-Trumps-A-Serious-Candidate./-746431154791252903.htmlStaff2015-12-16T17:46:00ZChristie: Funding President's Refugee Program 'A Capitulation'Staffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Christie:-Funding-Presidents-Refugee-Program-A-Capitulation/664665355053326515.html2015-12-16T17:42:00Z2015-12-16T17:42:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>At 2 a.m. Tuesday night, Congress released the details of a $1.1 trillion spending bill. The 2,009-page bill does not contain measures restricting Obama's controversial Syrian refugee program, even though <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/12/07/media-fail-prior-to-san-bernardino-61-opposed-obamas-refugee-program/" target="_blank">61%</a> of Americans oppose the program. On today&rsquo;s program, Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) reacted to the deal, arguing the funding of the refugee program is &ldquo;a capitulation.&rdquo; He cited FBI director, James Comey, who has made clear there is no way to vet the refugees coming in. Paul Ryan has urged the Republicans to give him a strong showing on this vote, as a sign of unity. Christie, however, argued supporting this deal is &ldquo;contrary to everything we stand for as Republicans.&rdquo;</p>
<p>The New Jersey governor suggested that, rather than uniting behind a program that will put American lives at risk, &ldquo;they should be putting on this bill is the restoration of the NSA metadata program so that we can give law enforcement and our intelligence community the tools they need over the holiday to keep us safe.&rdquo; Christie believes, with the exception of Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), calling to immediately reinstate the metadata collection program would be a better way to unite Republicans in Congress.</p>
<p>Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMzI4MQ==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>The omnibus spending bill, which apparently has now been negotiated, includes full funding for the president&rsquo;s refugee and resettlement program. Paul Ryan has urged all Republicans to give him a very strong showing on this as a sign of unity. Should the Republicans unify, they always do this right before the holiday season, it&rsquo;s always an emergency, right at the end, and fund this refugee resettlement? (12:08)</p>
<p><strong>Christie: </strong>It&rsquo;s contrary to everything we stand for as Republicans. We have law enforcement, the head law enforcement person in this country, Jim Comey, saying you cannot vet these refugees. You cannot do it. We saw San Bernadino attacked from people who are radicalized Islamic jihadists. We should not be doing this. Quite frankly, what they should be putting on this bill is the restoration of the NSA metadata program so that we can give law enforcement and our intelligence community the tools they need over the holiday to keep us safe. It should be reinstated immediately. If they're looking for something to unify all Republicans, it&rsquo;ll unify probably all the Republicans except maybe Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, behind the idea that we need to collect this data and keep America safe. But, the idea that we&rsquo;re funding the president&rsquo;s refugee program? That&rsquo;s a capitulation. &nbsp;(12:39)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Christie:-Funding-Presidents-Refugee-Program-A-Capitulation/664665355053326515.htmlStaff2015-12-16T17:42:00ZBuchanan: Paul Ryan Reading from Liberal CatechismStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Buchanan:-Paul-Ryan-Reading-from-Liberal-Catechism/349724106897574066.html2015-12-15T17:51:00Z2015-12-15T17:51:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Former presidential candidate, Pat Buchanan, discussed the collapse of the GOP establishment on today&rsquo;s program. The Establishment, according to Buchanan, is responsible for getting the United states into &ldquo;all these wars, who have failed to secure America&rsquo;s borders, &nbsp;who immediately react viscerally and politically correctly when anyone has a suggestion.&rdquo; Although 92% of all GOP voters, and 83% of all voters, wish to see no growth in immigration levels, the Establishment is incapable of learning and changing their globalist agenda. Due to this stubbornness, Buchanan claims &ldquo;the Establishment has been discredited.&rdquo; These actions have led to the immense support for outsider candidates, like Cruz and Trump, which &ldquo;are votes against the Establishment and what it produced.&rdquo; Larry Kudlow, a senior contributor at CNBC, echoed Buchanan&rsquo;s message about the Establishment, advising the Republican elite to, &ldquo;Let the voters vote, that's what Democracy is all about. This has worked very well, the establishment needs to stay out.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Buchanan also addressed Paul Ryan&rsquo;s reaction to Donald Trump&rsquo;s proposal to temporarily bar Muslim immigration. Ryan read a statement Buchanan said was taken &ldquo;out of the liberal catechism,&rdquo; claiming Trump&rsquo;s proposal did not reflect the America he knows. This was, Buchanan said, an appeal to the national media and a prime example of the Establishment&rsquo;s obstinance, as, every time, &ldquo;they go back to is the same old catechism they&rsquo;ve been preaching so long.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMzI3MQ==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<p><strong>Buchanan: </strong>The Establishment has been discredited. it is the elites of the country who are responsible, who have gotten us into all these wars, who have failed to secure America's borders, who immediately react viscerally and politically correctly when anyone has a suggestion. Maybe the situation is more serious than we imagined and maybe we&rsquo;ve got to take some steps, like a temporary halt in Muslim immigration, until we fix up a system to let that woman through. Simple common sense is causing hysterical reactions from the Establishment and I think the reason is the Establishment realizes that when you see all those votes of Carson and Trump and Cruz and the rest, they are votes against them. They are votes against the Establishment and what it produced. (5:34)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>And, the Establishment seems, as you pointed out in your piece, they seem incapable of learning. Globalism is so important to them - open borders, these trade deals, global interventionism - it&rsquo;s such an orthodox position that they will not compromise with their own voters. (6:23)</p>
<p><strong>Buchanan: </strong>Exactly. Now look, when I ran back in &lsquo;92, I said, look, if you pass these trade deals where Americans got $25 an hour manufacturing jobs and the Chinese have $2 and the Mexicans have $4, your factories are going to go over there. You&rsquo;re going to de-industrialize America, we&rsquo;re going to lose all our plants and jobs. We were just predicting it and people said, that&rsquo;s foolish, Buchanan, global trade is outstanding. But now 25 years later, the returns are in. We lost 6 million manufacturing jobs in the first decade of the 20th century, 55,000 factories - now, you say this is what happened, yet they continue. Now, look at what McConnell is doing. We can&rsquo;t have a vote, he says, on TPP until after the election. You know what that means? The Party doesn&rsquo;t want it, the people don&rsquo;t want it, so what we&rsquo;ll do is tell them we&rsquo;re really going to look at that and we&rsquo;ll wait until after the election, and then we&rsquo;ll tell our voter base, okay, we can do it now. (6:43)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Paul Ryan gets up and he reads his statement. He reads the statement saying this not who we are. This is not the American that I know. And, I responded by saying, well, is it the America we know to spend over $2 trillion in the Middle East only to destabilize it? Is the America we know to tell the people, well, you&rsquo;re horrible racists and xenophobic if you want the border shut down? Is that America, Paul? (8:15)</p>
<p><strong>Buchanan: </strong>What Paul Ryan&rsquo;s doing, with all due respect, he&rsquo;s reading out of the liberal catechism. He&rsquo;s reading out of the proper way to respond, a Republican should respond, when they&rsquo;re very good Republicans. He&rsquo;s appealing to the national media, which loves him. But, the point is, when situations are changing, it&rsquo;s difficult. All they go back to is the same old catechism they&rsquo;ve been preaching so long. &nbsp;(8:44)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>The catechism of? (9:08 )</p>
<p><strong>Buchanan: </strong>American liberalism. Really is. That&rsquo;s what it is. It&rsquo;s their basic ideology and philosophy. They cannot entertain the idea that their beliefs in open borders and endless immigration into this country may have become problematic in our current situation. As our situation is new, Lincoln said, we must think and act anew. And, they are incapable of doing that, in my judgement. (9:11 )</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Buchanan:-Paul-Ryan-Reading-from-Liberal-Catechism/349724106897574066.htmlStaff2015-12-15T17:51:00ZCNN Announces Candidate Line-UpStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/CNN-Announces-Candidate-Line-Up/-304052190130738360.html2015-12-14T18:40:00Z2015-12-14T18:40:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Sunday evening, CNN announced the Republican debate line up for the final debate of 2015. Donald Trump will take center stage, again, between Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson. Six other candidates - Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL), businesswoman Carly Fiorina, Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ), Gov. John Kasich (R-OH), and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) - will share the prime-time stage. Four candidates -- former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR), former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and former Gov. George Pataki (NY) -- will participate in the happy hour debate, which begins at 6 p.m. ET.</p>
<p>Trump recently lashed out at Cruz, after a new <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/trackers/2015-12-14/clinton-would-defeat-trump-lose-to-rubio-carson-nbc-news-poll" target="_blank">poll</a> showed the billionaire falling to second place in Iowa. The former Iowa frontrunner accused the Texas senator of being, &lsquo;a little bit of a maniac,&rsquo; and claimed to have much better judgement. Despite Trump&rsquo;s criticism, Cruz has, so far, refused to hit back and attack his opponent. The duo, previously thought to be allies on an Establishment dominated stage, seem to have hit a turning point in their relationship. Keep an eye on Cruz tomorrow night, he just might crack.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/CNN-Announces-Candidate-Line-Up/-304052190130738360.htmlStaff2015-12-14T18:40:00ZSo, Rubio Beat Jeb. Who Cares?Staffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/So,-Rubio-Beat-Jeb.-Who-Cares/-700126732126286620.html2015-12-14T18:17:00Z2015-12-14T18:17:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) surged ahead of Donald Trump in Iowa this weekend with a ten point lead, according to the latest DMR/Bloomberg <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/us/politics/ted-cruz-surges-past-donald-trump-to-lead-in-iowa-poll.html?_r=0" target="_blank">poll</a>. Just seven weeks from the Iowa caucus, editor-in-chief of The Iowa Republican and former political director of the GOP of Iowa, Craig Robinson, joined Ingraham to address Cruz&rsquo;s momentum. According to Robinson, Iowa is a &ldquo;perfect fit&rdquo; for Cruz because, traditionally, caucus goers are &ldquo;more in line with Ted Cruz than the Establishment Republicans, or even an outsider.&rdquo; Cruz&rsquo;s lead will not only hold, said Robinson, but continue to grow, at the expense of Donald Trump; he suggested the large number of conservative activists who dominate the caucus make Iowa an incredibly challenging state for the billionaire. Robinson warned Trump, who lashed out at Cruz after falling to second place, &ldquo;it&rsquo;s a little dangerous to flippantly go after Ted Cruz,&rdquo; because the two candidates are courting many of the same voters in Iowa.</p>
<p>The Iowan also addressed Rubio&rsquo;s lack of support in Iowa where, he says, there is &ldquo;more buzz about Chris Christie in this state than there is about Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio.&rdquo; Interestingly, Robinson claimed the Florida senator&rsquo;s views have nothing to do with his low poll numbers. Instead, he says Iowans are &ldquo;not seeing the commitment out of Rubio to actually campaign in Iowa in an aggressive manner,&rdquo; and are, therefore, giving their support to other candidates. Instead, Robinson labeled Rubio&rsquo;s approach to Iowa &ldquo;awkward,&rdquo; suggesting, &ldquo;it&rsquo;s almost like Marco Rubio ran to beat Jeb Bush. Well, congratulations, you&rsquo;ve done that. You&rsquo;re now at 10% and Jeb&rsquo;s at 6. Who cares?&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMzI1OQ==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Given what we&rsquo;re seeing with the temperature of the Iowans out there, is it a trend that will hold for Cruz? (4:30)</p>
<p><strong>Robinson: </strong>I think it&rsquo;s more likely to hold for Cruz. And, that&rsquo;s because I&rsquo;ve always thought, all along, that Iowa was a perfect fit for someone like Ted Cruz, for someone who&rsquo;s conservative, who fights the right fights, and, when you&rsquo;re talking about a caucus where a smaller number of people are going to turn out who are more activist based, I think that voter is more in line with Ted Cruz than the Establishment Republicans, or even an outsider in some ways. So, I think Cruz has a lot of places to grow in Iowa because he is a really good fit with those traditional caucus goers. (4:35)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>So, the hit that Trump put on Cruz over the weekend, in the Fox News Sunday interview, where he said he&rsquo;s &lsquo;a little bit of a maniac,&rsquo; which I thought was a funny construction. How does that sit with the average Iowa caucus goer given your experience analyzing them? (5:19)</p>
<p><strong>Robinson: </strong>This whole election cycle has been kind of crazy and I never thought we&rsquo;d see Donald Trump lecturing about temperament to another GOP candidate. It&rsquo;s odd because, I think that you were right when you were talking about Trump should just ignore Cruz. Number one, I think Iowa was always going to be a difficult state for Trump, the hardest state for him, because of those conservative activists who dominate the caucus. But, secondly, there&rsquo;s a lot of people who are supporting Donald Trump who their second choice is Ted Cruz. And, there&rsquo;s a lot of people supporting Ted Cruz who their second choice is Donald Trump. They like the mentality and the make-up of these two candidates. So, I think it&rsquo;s a little dangerous to flippantly go after Ted Cruz like Trump has gone after everyone else. But, again, I do think, how do you react to polls? The one poll showing you in second place? Well, we saw it on Fox News Sunday. (5:35)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Marco Rubio, meanwhile, doesn&rsquo;t seem to be getting much traction in Iowa. He&rsquo;s not at the bottom of the barrel, but what is it about his views that don&rsquo;t seem to gel with the Iowans? Are Iowans less interventionist than the neo-conservative Rubio? (10:41)</p>
<p><strong>Robinson: </strong>I think it&rsquo;s a little different. I don't think it has anything to do with Rubio&rsquo;s views on any issue. I think what it is is, from my perspective in Iowa, it&rsquo;s almost like Marco Rubio ran to beat Jeb Bush. Well, congratulations, you&rsquo;ve done that. You&rsquo;re now at 10% and Jeb&rsquo;s at 6. Who cares? So, we&rsquo;re not seeing the commitment out of Rubio to actually campaign in Iowa in an aggressive manner that says, hey, I want to be the President of the United States. I want to win this thing. I want to win Iowa. He&rsquo;s had this very awkward approach to Iowa and I think it&rsquo;s killing him. (10:59 )</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>I just don&rsquo;t see the path for him at all. He has proportional representation in all the states but one, so 10% here, 10% there, 15%. I don&rsquo;t see it. (11:43)</p>
<p><strong>Robinson: </strong>The real problem he has is, you&rsquo;ve got a guy like Chris Christie in Iowa who is excellent on the stump. He&rsquo;s really good in that town hall setting. And, the voter looks at it, we talked about viability before with Huckabee and Santorum, but if you&rsquo;re an Iowa voter and you&rsquo;re more in that Establishment lane, you look at the two of them and you&rsquo;re like, man, I just really like Chris Christie. There&rsquo;s more buzz about Chris Christie in this state than there is about Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, which is shocking. I never thought we&rsquo;d see that. (11:58)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/So,-Rubio-Beat-Jeb.-Who-Cares/-700126732126286620.htmlStaff2015-12-14T18:17:00ZYork: GOP Determined Not to ChangeStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/York:-GOP-Determined-Not-to-Change/528423704540968673.html2015-12-11T17:25:00Z2015-12-11T17:25:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, Ingraham discussed the potential crack up of the GOP with the Washington Examiner&rsquo;s Chief Political Correspondent, Byron York. As Trump continues to gain momentum, despite recent controversy over his proposal to bar Muslim immigration to the U.S., Ingraham predicts a complete crack-up of the Republican Party, a break she says she will &ldquo;not cry one tear about.&rdquo; York echoed this sentiment, blaming the Party&rsquo;s stubbornness on immigration and the Middle East. According to York, the GOP have defined conservatism and Republicanism by these two issues and predicts they will do anything to fight those who attempt to alter these standards.</p>
<p>Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMzI0OQ==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>I think the party&rsquo;s going to crack up. And, I&rsquo;m not going to cry one tear about that. This is a long, long break up in the offing here. (10:51)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>York: </strong>I think the signals that you&rsquo;re getting from the Party is they are absolutely determined not to change. One, on the issue of immigration. And, two, on the issue of U.S. involvement in the Middle East. Which has led to a disastrous war in Iraq. I think they are absolutely determined not to change that. They have defined that as what conservatism and what Republicanism is. And, I think they&rsquo;ll do anything to fight that. (10:57)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/York:-GOP-Determined-Not-to-Change/528423704540968673.htmlStaff2015-12-11T17:25:00ZLeahy Amendment a "Very Dangerous Idea"Staffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Leahy-Amendment-a-Very-Dangerous-Idea/941017016293993533.html2015-12-10T18:16:00Z2015-12-10T18:16:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>As the Senate prepares to vote on Sen. Patrick Leahy&rsquo;s (D-VT) amendment to prohibit the government from barring individuals from entering the country based on their religion. According to Mark Krikorian, the Executive Director for the Center for Immigration Studies, the amendment would &ldquo;effectively apply the first amendment to all foreigners abroad.&rdquo; Although Krikorian admitted it is healthy for the U.S. to have an &ldquo;allergy towards using religion in making political decisions, or immigration decisions,&rdquo; he condemned the idea of &ldquo;handcuffing&rdquo; the visa officers and State Department from using the criteria they see see appropriate in establishing decisions.</p>
<p>Although Republicans are rushing to support this amendment, Krikorian pointed out Congress has passed very similar legislation. He explained, in 1990, Congress repealed ideological exclusion, meaning the law currently says, &ldquo;we are not allowed to keep people out based on their beliefs, statements, or associations, <em>if</em> those things would be lawful in the United States.&rdquo; Therefore, the first amendment is already, to some extent, applied to foreigners abroad, a policy that would be expanded by Leahy&rsquo;s amendment. Krikorian warned, &ldquo;this is a very dangerous idea we need to repeal, that 1990 measure, not reinforce it with this terrible amendment they&rsquo;re going to be talking about.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Krikorian also emphatically stated, &ldquo;There needs to be a bright line that no one, for any reason, ever has any right to come to the United States if we don&rsquo;t let them.&rdquo; He argued it is critical to understand that, &ldquo;even if our criteria are stupid, or inappropriate in screening out people, that&rsquo;s our business. No one has any legal right or any legal recourse if they want to come to the United States.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMzI0Nw==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>So, you&rsquo;re getting at ideological exclusion. Now, I want to talk about how practically that would work, because to me that sounds very difficult to enforce. But, let&rsquo;s, for right now, focus on this piece of legislation that I see all these Republicans rushing to support, which is saying, the President of the United States cannot take into account religion in making immigration decisions. Now, what does that open us up to? What does that mean for future lawsuits that immigrants can file, prospective immigrants can file? Decisions between bringing in a Syrian pastor versus a militant imam. Seems like the militant imam would have a cause of action under this new legislation. (4:29)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Krikorian: </strong>The problem is that what this amendment would do is it would effectively apply the first amendment to all foreigners abroad. Which is crazy. It does, in fact, seem to create a kind of right to come to the United States, regardless of what your beliefs are. And, so, generally speaking, it&rsquo;s healthy for us to have a certain leariness or allergy towards using religion in making political decisions, or immigration decisions. But, the idea that we should be handcuffing our visa officers, our state department people, from using whatever criteria they see appropriate, in immigration decisions is not healthy, it&rsquo;s dangerous. The problem is, of course, this is something people don&rsquo;t get, Congress, in a sense, already did this. In 1990, when, sponsored by Barney Frank, they repealed ideological exclusion and they said, and this is what the law now says, we are not allowed to keep people out based on their beliefs, statements, or associations, if those things would be lawful in the United States. In other words, they already applied the first amendment to all foreigners abroad. And, this is a very dangerous idea we need to repeal, that 1990 measure, not reinforce it with this terrible amendment they&rsquo;re going to be talking about. &nbsp;(5:20)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Krikorian: </strong>This amendment, if the Republican leadership insists on moving forward with this, they ought to amend the amendment to say exactly what you said. No cause of action for an American or a foreigner - in other words, an American can&rsquo;t sue to bring a foreigner into the country and the foreigner can&rsquo;t sue, regardless of anything else in this amendment. (8:14)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Leahy-Amendment-a-Very-Dangerous-Idea/941017016293993533.htmlStaff2015-12-10T18:16:00ZCall your Senators Today. Tell Them to Vote No on Leahy AmendmentStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Call-your-Senators-Today.-Tell-Them-to-Vote-No-on-Leahy-Amendment/141818698471390923.html2015-12-10T14:56:00Z2015-12-10T14:56:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Congress is scheduled to vote <em>today</em> on <a href="http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/ALB15F55.pdf" target="_blank">legislation</a> put forward by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), which states, &ldquo;the United States 4 must not bar individuals from entering into the United 5 States based on their religion.&rdquo;</p>
<p>According to Congressional <a href="http://freebeacon.com/national-security/congress-to-consider-easing-passage-into-u-s-for-immigrants/" target="_blank">critics</a>, &ldquo;if religion cannot be considered, then of course you cannot favor say Australian immigration over Middle East immigration since religion is, of course, a factor in that decision. It would mean you could not favor a Christian Syrian priest over a fundamentalist Muslim cleric, and that if you denied the cleric you&rsquo;d be paving the road to them having standing to sue for entry from a foreign country.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Further, if passed, the rule would prevent authorities from normal background checks intended to ensure individuals entering the United States are not tied to terrorists or other criminal enterprises.</p>
<p>Call your senators today and tell them to vote no on easing passage into the United States.</p>
<em>US Capitol Switchboard: </em><a href="tel:%28202%29%20224-3121" target="_blank">(202) 224-3121</a> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Call-your-Senators-Today.-Tell-Them-to-Vote-No-on-Leahy-Amendment/141818698471390923.htmlStaff2015-12-10T14:56:00ZTrump Defends Constitution While Ryan Shows Off for Liberal MediaStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Trump-Defends-Constitution-While-Ryan-Shows-Off-for-Liberal-Media/-209440959458660655.html2015-12-09T19:13:00Z2015-12-09T19:13:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, Reagan biographer Craig Shirley addressed the divide within the Republican Party, especially as Donald Trump faces increased scrutiny for his proposal to bar Muslims from entering the United States. Shirley referenced the history of the Republican Party, suggesting &ldquo;the proper state of the Republican Party is being in a state of revolution.&rdquo; Thus, he argued it is deeply concerning that the Establishment, particularly Paul Ryan, is advocating for the status quo. Looking forward, the &ldquo;natural progression forward is for the Party to revert back to its revolutionary roots,&rdquo; which is a mentality currently found in the revolutionaries - a group Shirley said includes Ingraham, Levin, Limbaugh, and, of course, Donald Trump.</p>
<p>Turning his attention back to Speaker Ryan, Shirley criticized the speaker&rsquo;s reaction to Donald Trump&rsquo;s statement. Shirley advised Ryan, who <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ryan-trump-muslim-immigration" target="_blank">announced</a> Trump&rsquo;s comments were &ldquo;not what this party stands for&rdquo; and &ldquo;not conservatism,&rdquo; to &ldquo;study the American revolution,&rdquo; accusing the new speaker of being ignorant of it. Despite Trump&rsquo;s clumsiness, the historian suggested the candidate is openly &ldquo;expressing his concern for the defense of the American Constitution,&rdquo; which is a welcome contrast to Ryan, who Shirley accused of showing off for the liberal media. Unfortunately, Shirley warned, &ldquo;this is about something far more serious than scoring sound bites for the benefit of the liberal media.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript:&nbsp;<strong>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMzIzNw==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>So, if the GOP ends up splitting, as we see this perhaps in the offing - meaning a lot of these globalists throw in with Hillary, who&rsquo;s also a globalist. Then, the elites all join Hillary, they support Hillary. And, what do you say to that? &nbsp;(5:20)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Shirley: </strong>I think Trump is at the vanguard of something profound that's going on inside the Republican Party and it started really with Goldwater and evolved with Reagan. Reagan left the Party with a coherent governing philosophy as of January 1989, the Bushes came in, broke it up, and you have a broken Party today. It&rsquo;s natural evolution. The proper state of the Republican Party is being in a state of revolution, not the status quo. So, right now you&rsquo;ve got revolutionaries - yourself or Limbaugh or Mark Levin or Donald Trump - who say, we need to challenge the status quo. And, we have the Establishmentarians - like Paul Ryan - saying we need to defend the status quo. So, there&rsquo;s an inconsistency in the Party and the natural progression forward is for the Party to revert back to its revolutionary roots. (5:41)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Paul Ryan came out swinging his new beard - very exciting - he came out swinging against Trump. (7:20)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Shirley: </strong>Did he grow wisdom with it? (7:27)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>I know. I&rsquo;m not sure the point of the beard. But, nevertheless, he&rsquo;s very into his looks. So, he comes out with his beard and says Trump is anti-American. He said it&rsquo;s contrary to American values and not conservative. What would your response to Speaker Ryan be? (7:29)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Shirley: </strong>I would say Speaker Ryan needs to study the American revolution. I think he&rsquo;s ignorant of it. The first role of an American conservative is to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States against all enemies - foreign and domestic. And, most every president has understood that. And, I think that Trump, even if he&rsquo;s clumsy, is expressing his concern for the defense of the American Constitution. It&rsquo;s nice for Paul to show off for the liberal media, but this is about something far more serious than scoring sound bites for the benefit of the liberal media. (7:45)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>I don&rsquo;t know where Paul Ryan thinks he&rsquo;s getting all these new conservative voters who are supporting globalism, these horrible trade deals, open borders, and more foreign workers. Where are these voters going to come from? &nbsp;(9:03)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Shirley: </strong>He&rsquo;s not. &nbsp;(9:11)</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Trump-Defends-Constitution-While-Ryan-Shows-Off-for-Liberal-Media/-209440959458660655.htmlStaff2015-12-09T19:13:00ZMcCarthy Supports Total Pause on ImmigrationStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/McCarthy-Supports-Total-Pause-on-Immigration/479600376859539150.html2015-12-08T16:39:00Z2015-12-08T16:39:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Donald Trump is under fire again, this time due to his <a href="https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration" target="_blank">call</a> for a &ldquo;a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.&rdquo; On today&rsquo;s program, National Review contributor, Andy McCarthy, voiced concerns Trump &ldquo;is going to be painted as a bigot;&rdquo; even more troubling, however, was McCarthy&rsquo;s prediction that those who find any validity in Trump&rsquo;s proposals will be painted in a similar light. The former attorney, who recently<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427983/ted-cruz-for-president-2016-candidate-would-fight-islamic-supremacism" target="_blank"> announced</a> his support for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), also addressed the possibility of putting a complete pause on immigration to the United States until we are able to understand who is here. McCarthy said he would have no problems stopping &ldquo;all immigration across the board,&rdquo; if the nation is unable to make &ldquo;sensible choices&rdquo; about who crosses our borders. He said, &ldquo;Nobody has a right to the United States,&rdquo; meaning the nation has both the ability and the right to exercise any degree of caution in regards to immigration policy.</p>
<p>McCarthy specifically called out Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who is known for being remarkably weak on immigration. Rubio has repeatedly referenced America&rsquo;s &ldquo;broken immigration system,&rdquo; leading McCarthy to question, &ldquo;why are we letting people in through a broken system?&rdquo; Instead, he argued it makes much more sense to put a complete moratorium on immigration while the system is re-evaluated. McCarthy stressed it is not just radicalized jihadists the United States must be wary of, but also those &ldquo;who are apt to be radicalized because their minds are already open to Islamic supremacism when we let them in the doors.&rdquo; And, due to these concerns, McCarthy reiterated his support for Cruz, who is &ldquo;willing to examine and draw these lines that would allow us to keep people who are not only dangerous out of the country, but apt to become dangerous once they get here.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMzIxMw==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<strong>Ingraham: </strong>What about this? What about a pause on immigration? Until we can really understand who&rsquo;s here, whether they&rsquo;re overstaying their visas - including many Muslims who&rsquo;ve overstayed their visas, students, au pairs - we have people just overstaying their visas, allowed to stay here and work. What about a pause on immigration? And, maybe Ted Cruz&rsquo;s idea is the best one, from any region that has a predominant radical population - ISIS, al Qaeda, other radical influences - until we get a better handle on this. What about that? (6:10 )&nbsp;
<p><strong>McCarthy: </strong>Laura, I would pause all immigration across the board if we couldn&rsquo;t make sensible choices like that. If people said that, you know, that&rsquo;s religious discrimination, than I would say fine, end all of it until we can fix it. Immigration Is a discretionary act of the country. Nobody has a right to come to the United States. And, if all these people, from Marco Rubio on down, are going to say again and again and again, the system is broken, I say, well, fine, fix the system and then get back to me. But, in the meantime, why are we letting people in through a broken system? What sense does that make? (6:45 )</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>So, tell me why Ted Cruz might be, in this case, the smart choice for those who are more populist, concerned about what&rsquo;s happened to the country&rsquo;s economy and our vulnerability - through our immigration system, through the visa process, and across our borders. Why is Ted Cruz the right choice? (7:25 )</p>
<p><strong>McCarthy:</strong> On immigration, he has done two things that I don&rsquo;t see a lot of others in the field doing effectively. One is, he&rsquo;s willing to examine and draw these lines that would allow us to keep people who are not only dangerous out of the country, but apt to become dangerous once they get here. He&rsquo;s at least trying to set out a prescription for doing that. The other thing I think he&rsquo;s done, laura, is he recognizes the connection between the wage depression that a lot of Americans are dealing with in this economy and the insanity of bringing in and legalizing millions of people who would then be competing for those jobs. I think he's the only one I&rsquo;ve heard in these debates who&rsquo;s really clearly articulated that this is a really terrible time to be moving ahead with what is a terrible idea in the first place, which is the way this whole immigration reform is going. (7:48)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/McCarthy-Supports-Total-Pause-on-Immigration/479600376859539150.htmlStaff2015-12-08T16:39:00ZPaul: Rubio, Jeb Wrong on NSA SurveillanceStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Paul:-Rubio,-Jeb-Wrong-on-NSA-Surveillance/71066492679121837.html2015-12-07T18:30:00Z2015-12-07T18:30:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Last weekend, the U.S. intelligence community ceased its bulk collection of telephone metadata. In the aftermath of the San Bernadino shootings, many Establishment Republicans, including former Gov. Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), are calling to reinstate the program. Today on <em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) responded, suggesting candidates seeking to bring back data collection are, &ldquo;spreading fear in order to get people to give up their liberties.&rdquo; He pointed out there is no meaningful evidence that the program - which was in place during the Boston bombings, as well as the Paris attacks - stopped or added any information to stop terrorist attacks in the past. For that reason, the Kentucky senator is, &ldquo;not willing to trade [his] liberty for a false sense of security.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Paul also questioned how these candidates could support open border policies, &ldquo;yet they want to spy on all the American citizens.&rdquo; Paul, of course, referenced Rubio&rsquo;s horrendous record on the issue of immigration. Historically, Paul has &ldquo;tried to convince Rubio to support a more secure border,&rdquo; but the Florida senator has stood firmly on the side of amnesty, going back to the Gang of 8 Bill. Paul detailed his most recent amendment, which calls for a pause on immigration from the Middle East, arguing the United States will be made more secure by increasing scrutiny of refugees, visitors, and students from this region, as well, as Europe, not by reinstating the bulk data collection program.</p>
<p>Ingraham also pressed Sen. Paul on the upcoming omnibus spending bill vote. Paul said he would absolutely vote no &ldquo;for these 2,000 page bills that nobody&rsquo;s going to read.&rdquo; Instead, he suggests letting all the spending expire, forcing the Democrats to gather the votes to affirmatively pass funding for programs, like Planned Parenthood. On this issue, Paul, unlike Republican leaders Sen. McConnell and Rep. Ryan, believes, &ldquo;keeping government open is not more important than reforming it.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMzIxMQ==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Jeb Bush&rsquo;s comments on NSA - why is he wrong on this? (3:30)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Paul: </strong>You know, Bush, Rubio, Christie, all these big government Republicans, they have a little bit more about how we defend our borders. They&rsquo;re for open borders for people coming in, yet they want to spy on all the American citizens by collecting all our records. Couple points ought to be made about the bulk collection program. The bulk collection program was declared illegal by the circuit court, one step below the Supreme Court. Also, two bipartisan commissions looked and said, did it stop any attacks? And, it turns out there&rsquo;s no evidence that it stopped or uniquely added to any information to stop any attacks. We had it in place during the Boston bombing. We had it in place during the Paris attacks. And, really, it&rsquo;s been in place for any period of time before San Bernadino. So, I think there is a question whether or not any of this bulk collection has been adequate or been effective in stopping any terrorist attacks. I don&rsquo;t think so. And, I guess, I&rsquo;m not willing to trade my liberty for a false sense of security. (3:32)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Paul: </strong>You have people now clamoring - Rubio and other big government Republicans - they want to bring this back. We&rsquo;re not safe, we&rsquo;re not safe. Well, the thing&rsquo;s been in place for a decade. it&rsquo;s been in place during all of these attacks. And, really, I think they&rsquo;re marketing fear and they&rsquo;re spreading fear in order to get people to give up their liberties when, in reality, I&rsquo;ve tried to convince Rubio to support a more secure border, and he won&rsquo;t support it. I mean, I&rsquo;ve introduced an amendment, most recently, this last week that would say, look, let&rsquo;s just say pause on immigration from the Middle East until we have an idea of who&rsquo;s here and whether or not the system is adequate for screening people coming in. It&rsquo;s not just refugees. It&rsquo;s immigrants, it&rsquo;s students, it&rsquo;s visitors. All the people from the Middle East have to have more scrutiny. We also have to have better scrutiny of those coming from Europe. We can&rsquo;t have a visa waiver program where you can come without a visa from Europe, because we now have hundreds of thousands of people who have migrated to Europe who are hell bent on attacking Western civilization. (5:19)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>December 11th looks like it&rsquo;s the, again, the big omnibus nightmare on Capitol Hill, where all these spending bills are rolled into one, including a provision that would allow for the resettlement of refugees, the ones you just described, coming into our country. Will you vote against this omnibus spending bill if leadership does not strip out the language that will fund the resettlement of refugees? (14:40)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Paul: </strong>Absolutely. I will be a no vote on this as I&rsquo;m a no vote on anything that collects all the spending together in one bill. I think we need to do the opposite. I think we need to let all the spending expire. Let it all expire - Planned Parenthood, the refugee programs, let it all expire. And, I would say to the other side, you need to gather the votes to affirmatively pass these things. Then we would finally get spending reform. But, I&rsquo;m not voting for these 2,000 page bills that nobody&rsquo;s going to read. &nbsp;(15:03 )</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Why is someone like a Mitch McConnell and a Paul Ryan going down this road? They&rsquo;re supposed to be Republican leaders. Why are they going down this road? (15:30)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Paul: </strong>Some people in Washington have made the decision that keeping Washington open is more important than reforming government. We borrow a million dollars a minute, we&rsquo;re bankrupting the country, and to me, keeping government open is not more important than reforming it. I think we&rsquo;re more at risk now by keeping it open, borrowing a million dollars a minute, than we are by actually saying look, let&rsquo;s let it all expire, so we can finally, once and for all, reform spending. (15:37)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Paul:-Rubio,-Jeb-Wrong-on-NSA-Surveillance/71066492679121837.htmlStaff2015-12-07T18:30:00ZPA Rep: Refugee Program Violates Oath to Defend AmericaStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/PA-Rep:-Refugee-Program-Violates-Oath-to-Defend-America/713200749537329414.html2015-12-07T17:24:00Z2015-12-07T17:24:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br>On today&rsquo;s program, Rep. Scott Perry (PA) addressed the omnibus spending bill, which includes funding for Obama&rsquo;s refugee resettlement program. As the Dec. 11 deadline looms, Perry said he has no intention to vote for a bill funding the program. The Pennsylvania representative referenced his oath to office, in which he swore to defend the United States against all enemies - foreign and domestic - saying, &ldquo;<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMzIwMw==" target="_blank">I can&rsquo;t see how voting for something that continues to fund [the refugee program] is defending my nation.</a>&rdquo; Perry claims Speaker Ryan has been made aware of the staunch opposition to the program and remains hopeful the new speaker will help &ldquo;put the president on defense, as opposed to allowing him to continue to be on offense.&rdquo; <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/PA-Rep:-Refugee-Program-Violates-Oath-to-Defend-America/713200749537329414.htmlStaff2015-12-07T17:24:00ZBlack Pastors Debate Obama's Contributions to Black AmericaStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Black-Pastors-Debate-Obamas-Contributions-to-Black-America/-142193977344745799.html2015-12-04T18:21:00Z2015-12-04T18:21:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on <em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, Revs. Jacques DeGraff and Aubrey Shines debated whether Barack Obama&rsquo;s presidency has been good for the black community. According to Rev. DeGraff, the Republican presidential candidates have done little to substantively address problems facing black America. DeGraff repeatedly pointed to polls, claiming the black community stands firmly behind Obama; however, he failed to answer whether he was satisfied with the results of Obama&rsquo;s policies.</p>
<p>Ingraham pointed to the devastating impact of illegal immigration on employment within the black community, arguing policies cracking down on this would without a doubt aid the black community as illegal immigration, &ldquo;floods the lower income and even middle-income positions with lower income, low skilled individuals that crowd out African-Americans, that crowd out Hispanic Americans, from those jobs.&rdquo; She also referenced the TPP, which, if passed, will further flood the job market. DeGraff quickly dismissed these policies, claiming, the &ldquo;more fundamental, immediate issue, is failing schools.&rdquo; But, when questioned about President Obama&rsquo;s opposition to the $11 million of funding for opportunity scholarships in the District of Columbia, DeGraff skirted the question.</p>
<p>While Rev. DeGraff may be unsatisfied with the Republican Party, Rev. Shines claims there are &ldquo;tons and tons&rdquo; of GOP candidates proposing substantive policies to better the black communities. He echoed Ingraham&rsquo;s message on immigration, saying, &ldquo;because of illegal immigration alone 18-22% of higher unemployment now is in the black community.&rdquo; He continued on, quoting Obama&rsquo;s own book, <em>Audicity of Hope</em>, which says &ldquo;when you have that level of illegal immigration, you&rsquo;re going to have safety nets that are going to burst at the seams and blue collar workers.&rdquo; Further, Shines disagreed with DeGraff&rsquo;s claim that blacks stand firmly behind Obama, claiming &ldquo;they&rsquo;re finally awakening to the fact that the DNC Party, with trillions of dollars, after several decades has failed them. And, thank God, they&rsquo;re finally awakening to these realities.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript:<strong> [<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMzE5Nw==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>We have a government that refuses to do the basics. And, I mean the basics that protect our borders, protect and vet people who come into this country, and deport people who shouldn&rsquo;t be here. Criminally convicted people, who are released onto our streets, 179,000 have been released, and we can&rsquo;t find them. (11:19 )</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Shines: </strong>Laura, it&rsquo;s simple. The DNC Party, headed by this inept president, it&rsquo;s simple, they want to confiscate guns. Let&rsquo;s remember, it was guys like Frederick Douglass and Ida B. Wells that actually championed the second amendment after the 14th amendment. So, when I hear this rhetoric from these DNC, what I call plantation minded people, it sickens me, because they don&rsquo;t want to deal and address the real issue. There are more blacks that are killing blacks, with guns that are legal, than people that have legal guns that are killing anyone. You know what it is? It personifies who this failed president really is. He can&rsquo;t address the issue, it&rsquo;s not in his theology, to address it. (11:48 )</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Rev. DeGraff, there was an interesting interview today on MSNBC with Michael Eric Dyson about President Obama, I guess he has a book coming out. But, his point on MSNBC, was that President Obama, basically he says, has been not good for black people. He said it&rsquo;s been a disappointment because - he cites all the issues unemployment, violence - that he hasn&rsquo;t engaged the black community, in part because he is black, perhaps, and he feels that he doesn&rsquo;t want to look like he&rsquo;s just catering to one group. What do you think about his comments in that regard, which I found interesting? &nbsp;(12:35 )</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>DeGraff: </strong>Well, they&rsquo;re nothing new. But, the fact of the matter is that every time black America had a chance to vote for him, they gave him 90% of the vote. &nbsp;(13:14 )</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Was that in the end, did that in the end, really, pay off? Is black America today really better off than it was eight years ago? (13:26)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>DeGraff: </strong>Black America has spoken and stands four-square behind this president. In every poll. Donald Trump wants to talk about polls? Barack Obama talks about polls. And, black America supports him, over 90%. End of story. (13:35 )</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>That&rsquo;s not the question. I know the facts, obviously. Of course black America supports him. (13:50)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>DeGraff: </strong>I&rsquo;m saying black Americans are the best judge of what is good for them. And, black Americans have determined that this president is good for them. In fact, the best president for them. (13:52 )</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>But, what do you think? Are you satisfied with the joblessness? You&rsquo;re satisfied with the crime? &nbsp;(14:00 )</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>DeGraff: </strong>I&rsquo;m not satisfied with the level of public discourse that ignores when the Republican presidential candidates get up and don&rsquo;t talk about anything of substance relating to black America. I haven&rsquo;t heard it. (14:13)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Well, Donald Trump just met with a hundred black leaders. What&rsquo;s wrong with that? (14:26)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>DeGraff: </strong>Laura, in the real world, the choice is not between an existing person and a hypothetical. It&rsquo;s between real choices. And, none of the Republican presidential candidates have offered real alternatives for black America. Which is why they poll the way they do. (14:31)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>You say, what policies. One policy that would, without a doubt, help the most underprivileged in the country is immigration enforcement, because it floods the lower income and even middle-income positions with lower income, low skilled individuals that crowd out African-Americans, that crowd out Hispanic Americans, from those jobs. So, when you say there are no policies, how about a policy of really enforcing immigration law? (15:42 )</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>DeGraff: </strong>Republicans control both houses of Congress and they haven&rsquo;t been able to get their act together. In fact, one of the leading candidates put together a plan and then abandoned it. &nbsp;</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">For me, a more fundamental, immediate issue, is failing schools. The schools are failing our young people. (16:03)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Barack Obama single handedly blocked the opportunity scholarships in the District of Columbia. It was a measly $11 million dollars, because I was helping in this effort. He was so beholden to the teacher&rsquo;s unions that he blocked these poor kids from getting these scholarships. 2,700 black families lined up for these scholarships. And, the president who&rsquo;s done the most for the black people is the guy who blocks them? You&rsquo;ve got to be kidding me. &nbsp;(16:25)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>DeGraff:</strong> Do you think the blacks in Washington D.C. if given another chance would vote for Barack Obama? &nbsp;(16:54)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Well, do you think that is pro-black to block black scholarships? That&rsquo;s my question. I don&rsquo;t care who voted for what. It&rsquo;s a substantive question. He blocked the scholarship that you said was important.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>DeGraff: </strong>The fundamental point of your question is do blacks support this president. (17;13 )</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>No, it isn&rsquo;t. It&rsquo;s, has he been good for the black community? You just said education was important. Thousands of black families wanted these positions in schools, he blocked them. (17:18)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>DeGraff: </strong>The indication of whether they think he&rsquo;s good for them would be manifested in, do they support him? Because, they are the best judge of what is good for them. And, we believe Barack Obama is the best. (17:30)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>You think this is all working out great for black America? Flooding the market place with illegal labor and through international trade deals? (17:36)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>DeGraff: </strong>You don&rsquo;t need to judge what&rsquo;s good for us. We know what&rsquo;s good for us. Like every other community. Understand that self-determination is a fundamental&hellip; (17;46)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>If he wasn&rsquo;t black would you say the same thing? (17:53)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Hello? (17:57)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>DeGraff: </strong>I don&rsquo;t deal with those hypotheticals. (17:59)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Let&rsquo;s go to Shines. I am frustrated because these are facts. These are facts I&rsquo;m throwing out. Pastor Shines, go ahead. (18:01)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Shines: </strong>Well, let me just say, very quickly, your guest is 100% incorrect. There are tons and tons of GOP candidates out there that have, listen, according to Barack&rsquo;s own people, because of illegal immigration alone 18-22% of higher unemployment now is in the black community. And, according to his own book, <em>Audacity of Hope</em>, when you have that level of illegal immigration, you&rsquo;re going to have safety nets that are going to burst at the seams and blue collar workers, unlike what Rivera tells us that they&rsquo;re here just to pick oranges, it&rsquo;s a lie. It&rsquo;s taking construction jobs. Blacks have finally begun to awaken to the facts that the DNC Party is a party of plantation minded people that are destroying black America. This is why 25%, according to the USA poll, are now looking at a guy like Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. Because they&rsquo;re finally awakening to the fact that the DNC Party, with trillions of dollars, after several decades has failed them. And, thank God, they&rsquo;re finally awakening to these realities.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Black-Pastors-Debate-Obamas-Contributions-to-Black-America/-142193977344745799.htmlStaff2015-12-04T18:21:00ZCall Your House Members and Senators Today. Tell Them To Ask Ryan To Reject Obama's Refugee Funding Request.Staffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Call-Your-House-Members-and-Senators-Today.-Tell-Them-To-Ask-Ryan-To-Reject-Obamas-Refugee-Funding-Request./266933635578928651.html2015-12-03T20:28:00Z2015-12-03T20:28:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>A few weeks ago, the House conducted a meaningless distraction show vote on the Ryan refugee bill which -&nbsp;<a href="http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2015/11/sessions-house-refugee-bill-fails-to-defend-interests-of-the-american-people" target="_blank">as Sen. Sessions explained</a>&nbsp;- authorizes Obama to bring in as many refugees as he wants from anywhere in the world. The majority of the public says no to Muslim refugees, but Ryan waves them on in - not just from Syria, but numerous countries which have already sent terrorists to the USA.</p>
<p>Most importantly: the Ryan bill was a show vote. It is not the law, and even if it became the law - which it won't - it will not change anything.</p>
<p>Funding for refugees is about to expire. All America has to do is tell Paul Ryan: don't give Obama his refugee funds, but put new rules in place to protect America.</p>
<p>Tell the GOP to stop working for the billionaire interests, and start working for America's interests! History doesn't have to repeat itself. Americans can win this time - if they try.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Call-Your-House-Members-and-Senators-Today.-Tell-Them-To-Ask-Ryan-To-Reject-Obamas-Refugee-Funding-Request./266933635578928651.htmlStaff2015-12-03T20:28:00ZSessions vs. GOP Establishment: Stop cowering over the prospect of a shutdownStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Sessions-vs.-GOP-Establishment:-Stop-cowering-over-the-prospect-of-a-shutdown/-384514077179980370.html2015-12-03T19:17:00Z2015-12-03T19:17:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on <em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) issued a warning to Republicans to stop cowering over the prospect of a government shutdown. According to the Alabama senator, the omnibus spending bill hands Obama a &ldquo;blank check&rdquo; to fund his refugee program, which a new YouGov/Economist <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/02/poll-strong-majority-including-63-of-hispanics-believe-u-s-should-not-accept-muslim-refugees/" target="_blank">poll</a> reveals is opposed by a strong majority, 62%, of the American people, who do not believe the U.S. should accept Muslim Syrian refugees. Therefore, the spending bill, which is a monstrous compilation of what used to be 13 separate bills, would allocate billions of dollars for a program that directly contradict the will of the American people.</p>
<p>Of course, just nine days before the deadline, the full text of the spending bill has still not been released. However, it has been made abundantly clear the bill intends to pave the way for Obama&rsquo;s controversial program. Sessions warns the bill will give Obama a &ldquo;blank check&rdquo; to fund his refugee program. The bill would not only fail to tighten the vetting process on Syrian refugees, but would grant the president the power to admit as many as he would like. Obama now says he will admit an additional 10,000, and indicated the number may grow to 20,000, refugees who are, as the new poll confirms, unwanted by the American people. Sessions has also raised concerns over Muslim immigration, in line with the concerns of the people. He claims, &ldquo;Altogether, we can expect to issue nearly 700,000 green cards &ndash; or lifetime residency cards &ndash; to migrants from Muslim nations over the next five years.&rdquo; And, unless Congress does something to stop the President&rsquo;s actions, there is no way to stop these individuals from being admitted into the country.</p>
<p>Sessions advised his colleagues to stand by the will of the American people and not cower to Obama&rsquo;s veto threats. If the President chooses to veto the funding bill &ldquo;just because Congress didn&rsquo;t fund one of his pet programs,&rdquo; the blame would certainly not fall on the shoulders of Republicans. If the President is forced to veto the bill and halt government funding, &ldquo;Republicans would have funded the government, they just responded to the American people on the refugee program.&rdquo; It&rsquo;s time for members of Congress to respond to the people because, as Ingraham said, &ldquo;You&rsquo;re not with the Party if you&rsquo;re going to do what you&rsquo;re going to do and fund this government without any restrictions on Obama.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMzE3Nw==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>You guys stand by, and you wait until December 11, when everyone is in the Christmas rush, to vote for this omnibus spending bill, which includes, what, senator? What specifically do we understand will be in this omnibus spending bill, which combines all of these federal spending bills into one big monster. What one big thing do you think will be in there, funding it? (7:12)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Sessions: </strong>Well, you mean, with regards to immigration? (7:33)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Yes, sir. (7;40)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Sessions: </strong>It will allow the refugee policy to continue, which the president can bring in as many refugees as he desires. He has the power to decide that. And, then, Congress has to come up with the money to pay for that, plus it has to pay for the long-term welfare benefits that these refugees will be entitled to. And, it&rsquo;s very substantial. (7:41)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>So, billions of dollars will be in this omnibus spending bill, that will allow the refugees to come into the country, after we just found out from the new poll that came out, from the Economist, that an overwhelming majority of Americans, including 63% of Hispanics, believe the U.S. should not accept Muslim refugees. So, they&rsquo;re just doing exactly the opposite of what the American people want, which is infuriating. But, Senator, specifically in this regard of the refugees, all of these Republicans voted for this Paul Ryan bill in the House of Representatives. Paul Ryan got up and gave a speech about vetting people and Paul Ryan got up and said, oh, we&rsquo;re against this until they&rsquo;re vetted. What did that vote really mean then? (8:10)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Sessions: </strong>It did not stop the flow. Or the numbers that the president has. And, it did not account for the cost that the taxpayers will incur as a result of the admission of, the president says now he&rsquo;s going to add 10,000 more, and indicated there could be another 20,000 more next year. But, made clear, Secretary Kerry did, that they could admit even more than that. It&rsquo;s purely at their discretion. Congress can curtail that, we can block that through the funding mechanism and through legislation, it could be on this bill. (8:54)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>We should stop absolutely cowering over the question of shut down. Congress has the right to pass laws. Congress has the right to fund programs and not fund programs. And, the President, if he vetoes a bill that funds the government of the United States because Congress didn&rsquo;t fund one of his pet programs, it&rsquo;s his fault that the government shut-down. Not Congress&rsquo;. &nbsp;(11:06)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Sessions: </strong>And, the Republicans, once that&rsquo;s explained to the American people, I think they&rsquo;ll overwhelming blame the president, correctly, for refusing to deal with this crisis that we&rsquo;re facing. &nbsp;(12:27)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham:</strong> How would that technically work on the omnibus process? Before we let you go, Senator. Again, the provision in the omnibus. Is the whole text released yet? Or, are they going to release it at the last minute and just drop it on everyone? (12:38)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Sessions:</strong> It&rsquo;ll be released at the last minute. We&rsquo;re already basically at the last minute. And, the whole bill is 13 bills that used to be passed individually, are now cobbled together into one. And, this bill would fund the refugee program. If it is, they will come into the country. He&rsquo;ll have the authority and the money to do it. It could be blocked and the legislation would say you can&rsquo;t spend money on this program, or only so much. Then, the president is going to be in the position of, will he veto that? If he vetoes it, the funding for the government is not there, so he will attempt to claim Republicans shut the government down. How silly is that? Republicans would have funded the government, they just responded to the American people on the refugee program and didn&rsquo;t fund that. And, he would be the one that shut the government down. For Heaven&rsquo;s sake! (12:50)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Sessions-vs.-GOP-Establishment:-Stop-cowering-over-the-prospect-of-a-shutdown/-384514077179980370.htmlStaff2015-12-03T19:17:00ZChristie: Rubio 'Never Made Any Significant Decisions'Staffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Christie:-Rubio-Never-Made-Any-Significant-Decisions/24992148009253774.html2015-12-02T21:21:00Z2015-12-02T21:21:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>This morning, the Chamber of Commerce announced its support for the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership. The Chamber&rsquo;s announcement follows the release of new information from the 5, 544 page trade deal, confirming Chapter 20 will fold in any of the climate agreement the President negotiates in Paris this week. On today&rsquo;s program, Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) addressed the new support for the deal, claiming, &ldquo;I just don&rsquo;t think this is the right thing for us to do.&rdquo; The New Jersey governor has been outspokenly opposed to the deal, which he believes put the United States at an economic disadvantage and hurt American workers. However, following the new details regarding climate stipulations, Christie says, he is &ldquo;even more convinced this agreement shouldn&rsquo;t be moved.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Gov. Christie also addressed opponent Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who has been coined the new Establishment favorite. Though Christie admitted Rubio, Jeb, and Kasich are his biggest competition in the state of New Hampshire, he was remained confident about pulling some of Rubio&rsquo;s support. According to Christie, Rubio lacks the experience to be tough on issues American citizens care about, including the ability to create jobs and raise wages.</p>
<p>Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMzE2NQ==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>What&rsquo;s your reaction to the Chamber&rsquo;s high-fiving this trade deal? (4:34 )</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Christie: </strong>Well, listen, you&rsquo;ve heard me before on this. I just don&rsquo;t think this is the right thing for us to do. And, now that we hear about the folding in of any climate agreement that they make in Paris and having us all be required to adhere to that? That&rsquo;s an end of day thing for me, because what&rsquo;s going on over there, this President has completely sold out our country. He&rsquo;s putting us at an economic disadvantage, hurting American workers, and hurting opportunity for us by this climate change effort. And, now that it&rsquo;s folded into TPP, it makes me even more convinced that this agreement shouldn&rsquo;t be moved. (4:37)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Is your adversary in New Hampshire more Rubio or more Trump? Trump&rsquo;s on top, but Rubio is now the Establishment&rsquo;s favorite. Who would it be? (9:59)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Christie: </strong>Listen, I think you&rsquo;ve got a group of folks, like Jeb Bush and John Kasich and Marco Rubio, who are the people I&rsquo;m really competing against in New Hampshire. I don&rsquo;t, in the moment, feel directly in competition with Donald Trump on these things. I feel much more in competition with Jeb Bush and John Kasich and also Marco Rubio. &nbsp;(10:01)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Do you think you can pull away some of Rubio&rsquo;s supporters ultimately? (10:32)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Christie: </strong>Oh, sure. Listen, my view on this is, if people really want the government to work appropriately, they want somebody who&rsquo;s going to be tough and who&rsquo;s going to make sure that the issues that really matter to them - making sure we create American jobs again, having opportunity for our American citizens to have higher wages, so that they can really help to support their families and support a lifestyle that they earned by their hard work - to have a president who talks once again about the value of work, the intrinsic value of work, the value of getting up every day and going to a job where you&rsquo;re working hard, you&rsquo;re interacting with other people, and you&rsquo;re bringing something of value to our society, and something to come home and sit around the kitchen table to talk to their families about. They need a president who&rsquo;s going to be talking about that again. And, I think that appeals to all voters. And, those are the things I&rsquo;m talking about. (10:34 )</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Is Rubio, in your mind, too much in the billionaire boys club deal, or what? Why wouldn&rsquo;t he do any of that? (11:25)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Christie: </strong>Well, first off, he doesn&rsquo;t have the experience to do it. The fact is he&rsquo;s a first term senator who&rsquo;s never had to make any significant decisions in his career. And, that&rsquo;s not the kind of on the job training that we need for the White House. The fact is, what we need is someone who&rsquo;s made these decisions. I&rsquo;ve been making these decisions and being held accountable for them for fifteen years, both as a federal prosecutor and as governor. And, I&rsquo;m not beholden to anyone. I&rsquo;m a Republican in New Jersey, I&rsquo;m used to being alone a lot. I stand by what I believe and no donor is going to tell me what to do. They never have and they certainly won&rsquo;t now. &nbsp;(11:31)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Christie:-Rubio-Never-Made-Any-Significant-Decisions/24992148009253774.htmlStaff2015-12-02T21:21:00ZIngraham Advises Congress: 'Be More Like Jeff'Staffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Ingraham-Advises-Congress:-Be-More-Like-Jeff/-325883671726777555.html2015-12-02T17:44:00Z2015-12-02T17:44:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>This morning, Ingraham offered advice to several members of Congress as they prepare for controversial votes over the Trans-Pacific Partnership, refugee resettlement, and the budget. Her advice? Be more like Jeff Sessions. Ingraham labeled Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) the &ldquo;oracle&rdquo; on issues including the TPP, immigration, and the budget.&nbsp; Sessions has consistently stood up for the American people on these issues, serving their interests rather than his own. This &ldquo;crazy thing&rdquo; is, according to Ingraham, the reason Sessions was not challenged, by either a Republican or a Democrat, in 2014. Though she admitted the Alabama senator may not be the &ldquo;flashiest guy,&rdquo; his dedication to his constituency is a lesson Ingraham advised members of Congress to learn from.</p>
<p>Too bad Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) missed it.</p>
<p>***</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>They&rsquo;re doing, both of them, in some way, what Jeff Sessions is doing. Sessions is Mr. Substance on Trans-Pacific Partnership, the budget, on the refugee resettlement, of course on both legal and illegal immigration. He is the oracle when it comes to those issues. Now, Jeff Sessions was not challenged by either a Republican or a Democrat in 2014. No one bothered running against Jeff Sessions. Why? Because, they knew that Jeff Sessions was doing the people&rsquo;s work and they were never, ever going to be able to defeat that. It just wasn&rsquo;t going to be possible. There&rsquo;s no way you&rsquo;re going to defeat that. So, Jeff Sessions spends his time doing this crazy thing called serving the interests of the people. Now, is he the flashiest guy? No. Is he a guy who would get 15,000 in a stadium? Probably not. But, he is in the Senate, doing the hard work of educating other members and bringing the substance to the floor. &nbsp;(6:36)</p>
<p><em>SESSIONS: We&rsquo;re not going to talk about your politics and your ideology and your special interests. We&rsquo;re going to talk about what&rsquo;s good for America.</em></p>
<p>So, when I speak to Capitol Hill - this morning I talked to all these GOP congressmen - you know what my simple message is? Be more like Jeff.</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Ingraham-Advises-Congress:-Be-More-Like-Jeff/-325883671726777555.htmlStaff2015-12-02T17:44:00ZFiorina: Delusional President More Passionate About Weather than ISISStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Fiorina:-Delusional-President-More-Passionate-About-Weather-than-ISIS/320516269438418675.html2015-12-01T17:47:00Z2015-12-01T17:47:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Last week, Obama declared the climate change summit in Paris would be a &ldquo;powerful rebuke&rdquo; to terrorists. On today&rsquo;s program, Carly Fiorina condemned President Obama&rsquo;s statement that this week&rsquo;s climate change summit in Paris is a &ldquo;powerful rebuke&rdquo; to terrorists. The presidential candidate said, &ldquo;It&rsquo;s delusional that terrorists are absolutely delighted that our president is so delusional that instead of fighting ISIS, he&rsquo;s talking about climate change.&rdquo; She criticized the president for his misplaced priorities claiming, &ldquo;[Obama] has no passion when he&rsquo;s talking about defeating our real enemy, which is ISIS.&rdquo;</p>
<p>&nbsp;Fiorina also addressed speculations that the climate change agreement will be crammed down the throats of the American people through the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership. The Richman brothers, who have read the 5,544 page trade deal in its entirety, have voiced concerns over Chapter 20 of the agreement, which reads, the deal &ldquo;requires compliance with previous multilateral environmental agreements that have been negotiated.&rdquo; The former HP CEO views this &ldquo;trap door&rdquo; as yet another example of why &ldquo;trade agreements are far better when negotiated bilaterally, as opposed to multilaterally.&rdquo; As such, she warned Congress not to push the vote to the lame duck session and to, instead, &ldquo;vote this thing down.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript:<strong>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMzE1NQ==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<p><strong>Fiorina: </strong>[Obama] continues to blame us for all kinds of things. He opened that press conference today by saying it&rsquo;s a powerful rebuke to the terrorists. He somehow seems to believe that our behavior causes terrorism. No, it&rsquo;s a rebuke to the terrorists. It&rsquo;s delusional that terrorists are absolutely delighted that our president is so delusional that instead of fighting ISIS, he&rsquo;s talking about climate change. I watched much of his press conference, and his passion comes when he&rsquo;s talking about climate change. He has no passion when he&rsquo;s talking about defeating our real enemy, which is ISIS. And, while he talks about, let&rsquo;s be accurate and factual about Planned Parenthood, well, here are some facts. Planned Parenthood acknowledged just a couple weeks ago that they will no longer take compensation for the sale of body parts, or as they call it, fetal tissue. I would call that an admission. Factually speaking, Planned Parenthood funneled millions of dollars in political contributions, as a taxpayer funded organization, to pro-abortion candidates. Mr. President, by all means, let us be factual. (2:41)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>They don&rsquo;t want the people to understand what&rsquo;s in this Trans-Pacific Partnership. Carly, you and I have talked about this before. Now, trade experts who have actually read all 5,000, 5, 554 pages of the TPP, Jesse Richman, Raymond Richman, authors of the book, <em>Balanced Trade</em>. They&rsquo;ve actually read chapter 20 in the TPP, that quote, listen to this, Carly: &ldquo;requires compliance with previous multilateral environmental agreements that have been negotiated.&rdquo; So, they believe that this Trans-Pacific Partnership will likely incorporate the TPP into it, once the commission first meets after the Trans-Pacific Partnership is passed. If Congress moves forward to pass this, this quickly will be part of the overall agreement, even if Congress doesn&rsquo;t vote on it as a treaty. Do you follow and what is your take on this? (4:12)</p>
<p><strong>Fiorina: </strong>Yes, absolutely. Well, it&rsquo;s an example of why these extremely complicated, multi-party agreements are not in our interest. Because, buried in the 5,000 pages negotiated with 12 other countries are trap doors. That&rsquo;s a trap door, if ever there was one. It does not serve our interests. (5:12)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>And, in the end, both trade deals and any type of treaties negotiated should be based in how they affect the average American, comply with our Constitution. And, what would you say to Congress as they are considering this, and perhaps trying to push it off to a lame duck vote after the presidential election. What do you say to the Republican and Democrat members of Congress? (5:29)</p>
<p><strong>Fiorina: </strong>First, trade agreements are far better when negotiated bilaterally, as opposed to multilaterally. Secondly, it makes no sense to walk this country into a multilateral agreement, negotiated over years in secret, that has trap doors such as you just described. So, man up, stand up, and be prepared to be held accountable or vote this thing down. It&rsquo;s a little bit like the continuing resolution. Let&rsquo;s push all this off to the next president. It&rsquo;s why people have lost faith in their leaders, honestly. (5:56)</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Fiorina:-Delusional-President-More-Passionate-About-Weather-than-ISIS/320516269438418675.htmlStaff2015-12-01T17:47:00ZDemocrats Attempt to Pass Sneaky Gun Control LegislationStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Democrats-Attempt-to-Pass-Sneaky-Gun-Control-Legislation/-759052600577703012.html2015-12-01T16:40:00Z2015-12-01T16:40:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Sean Davis, co-founder of <em>The Federalist</em>, joined Laura Ingraham today to discuss his recent piece, &ldquo;<a href="http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/23/sorry-democrats-but-there-is-no-loophole-that-allows-terrorists-to-buy-guns/" target="_blank">Sorry Democrats, But There Is No &lsquo;Loophole&rsquo; That Allows Terrorists To Legally Buy Guns</a><span style="text-decoration: underline;">.</span>&rdquo; Davis unpacked the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/s551/BILLS-114s551is.pdf" target="_blank">Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015</a>, which is essentially gun control masquerading as national security legislation. At first glance, legislation to prevent terrorists from acquiring firearms makes sense, however Davis explains these preventions are already in place; under current law, the attorney general already has all the power she needs to indict, arrest, convict, and sentence known, dangerous terrorists. The proposed legislation creates a terror watch list compiled by faceless bureaucrats and, even worse, attempts to turn the principle of due process on its head by depriving individuals on the list of their Constitutional right.</p>
<p>It's clear this bill seeks to do much more than hinder domestic terrorism. Instead, as Davis writes, &ldquo;Washington Democrats have decided that their real enemy isn&rsquo;t ISIS...their real enemies are Republicans. And they&rsquo;ll do whatever they can to defeat these dangerous electoral terrorists.&rdquo;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Democrats-Attempt-to-Pass-Sneaky-Gun-Control-Legislation/-759052600577703012.htmlStaff2015-12-01T16:40:00ZAgent: Border Patrol No Longer a Viable Enforcement ToolStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Agent:-Border-Patrol-No-Longer-a-Viable-Enforcement-Tool/2074567732040509.html2015-11-30T17:58:00Z2015-11-30T17:58:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br>On today&rsquo;s program, border patrol agent Chris Cabrera, who also serves as Vice-President of Local 3307, the union representing the Rio Grande Valley sector in south Texas, discussed the recent surge in Central American migrants at the border; claiming the border is &ldquo;unseasonably getting more than we have ever gotten this time of the year.&rdquo; Not only is there an unprecedented winter surge, Cabrera also noted a change in the typical demographics of border crossers. Last year, Cabrera claims agents saw mostly women accompanying young children; however, the more recent surge has been comprised mostly of men and children. Cabrera, who has spent over a decade as a Border Patrol agent in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas, expressed extreme dismay over the commissioner's willingness to allow &ldquo;<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMzE1Mw==" target="_blank">the administration to get away with using [the Border Patrol] as a window-dressing and not as a viable enforcement tool.</a>&rdquo; Though agents do a &ldquo;great job with what they have and the support they have,&rdquo; Cabrera admits, &ldquo;it&rsquo;s very difficult to keep your chin up knowing you&rsquo;re doing everything you can to do your job, but at the end of the day... it&rsquo;s a morale crusher.&rdquo; <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Agent:-Border-Patrol-No-Longer-a-Viable-Enforcement-Tool/2074567732040509.htmlStaff2015-11-30T17:58:00ZChris Kyle Frog Foundation Strengthens Its Service to Military and First RespondersStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Chris-Kyle-Frog-Foundation-Strengthens-Its-Service-to-Military-and-First-Responders/-981105548121344979.html2015-11-30T17:39:00Z2015-11-30T17:39:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br>The Chris Kyle Frog Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to serving military and first responders through meaningful interactive experiences that enrich family relationships. Started by Taya Kyle, Chris&rsquo;s wife, the foundation is there for these families, through their struggles and successes, using special programs and partnerships to offer support. To find out more, visit <a href="http://www.chriskylefrogfoundation.org" target="_blank">www.chriskylefrogfoundation.org</a>. <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Chris-Kyle-Frog-Foundation-Strengthens-Its-Service-to-Military-and-First-Responders/-981105548121344979.htmlStaff2015-11-30T17:39:00ZPaul: Climate Change Agreement Could Threaten US SovereigntyStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Paul:-Climate-Change-Agreement-Could-Threaten-US-Sovereignty/681024028260782386.html2015-11-30T17:28:00Z2015-11-30T17:28:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>This morning, President Obama addressed 150 world leaders at the kick-off of the UN COP21 Climate Change Summit in Paris, saying, &ldquo;the threat of climate change could define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other.&rdquo; Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) likened the President&rsquo;s comments to statements made by Democratic presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders, claiming climate change is a greater danger to the United States than terrorism. The Kentucky senator slammed this belief, calling it &ldquo;one of the most ludicrous statements I&rsquo;ve ever heard.&rdquo;</p>
<p>According to Sen. Paul, summits, such as the conference on climate change, do not always have a practical impact, but are instead about surrendering sovereignty. He warned, granting power to an international agency, such as the United Nations, could result in &ldquo;a bunch of two-bit dictators telling America what to do.&rdquo; Due to his skepticism of international agencies, Paul has introduced a bill to have Obama&rsquo;s climate change agreement considered as a treaty, not as a presidential agreement. As he prepares to ensure the agreement signed in Paris does not become American law, Sen. Paul noted a hint of deja-vu, as he fought the same battle, and lost, over the controversial Iran deal earlier this year.</p>
<p>Partial Transcript:<strong>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMzE0MQ==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>The President spoke out this morning in Paris at the kick-off of the big climate change summit, Senator Paul. This is part of what he said. He appreciates President Xi&rsquo;s cooperation on this issue, but isn&rsquo;t it the case that most countries, countries like China, make these commitments during these talks, they have no practical impact on the climate, then they just ignore their commitments. What is this really all about? (5:49)</p>
<p><strong>Paul: </strong>Giving up sovereignty is one thing it&rsquo;s about. The question I would have for him is, does he agree with Bernie Sanders that climate change is a greater danger to the country than terrorism. I mean, that&rsquo;s one of the most ludicrous statements I&rsquo;ve ever heard. And, somebody gave Bernie Sanders a pass on that. But, these people on the left actually do believe that. Many of them think that climate change is somehow a bigger threat to our country than terrorism. But, that just shows how far out there they are - these alarmists, these apocalyptic folks. But, one thing I&rsquo;ve introduced to try to make sure what they&rsquo;re signing over there doesn&rsquo;t become law in our land is, I&rsquo;ve introduced a bill to have it considered as a treaty, not as a presidential agreement. And, as you recall, this is the same kind of fight we had over the Iran agreement, whether it should be a treaty or an agreement. And, the only way we can force the issue is to have a vote in the Senate on calling it a treaty, and that&rsquo;s what I intend to have. (6:51)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>You hit the nail on the head, Senator Paul, as you often do, this is about sovereignty. This is about the United States&rsquo; ability to forge her own future, through her own duly elected representatives. So, it&rsquo;s not so much about climate change as it is about global governance and setting up global rules of the road that then completely supercede what any of y&rsquo;all do in Congress. And, that&rsquo;s why they love the TPP so much. The TPP goes down the same global governance rule as the climate change agreement. And, my question to you is, how do these agreements help the average person&rsquo;s standards of living in the United States? (7:46)</p>
<p><strong>Paul: </strong>Well, there&rsquo;s a real danger they can do the opposite. The danger that an international body, some kind of UN body, could kind of tell the U.S. government that our taxes are too low or our regulations are too soft and therefore we need to raise them because we are undercutting or selling our products cheaper than someone, because our taxes aren&rsquo;t high enough. That kind of craziness and government gobble-de-gook does come out of these international agencies. So, I don&rsquo;t like international agencies with a bunch of two-bit dictators telling America what to do and I&rsquo;ve been very concerned about giving up our sovereignty to international agencies. (8:27)</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Paul:-Climate-Change-Agreement-Could-Threaten-US-Sovereignty/681024028260782386.htmlStaff2015-11-30T17:28:00ZKudlow: Trump Worries Elites, Just Like ReaganStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Kudlow:-Trump-Worries-Elites,-Just-Like-Reagan/-584385974832332424.html2015-11-24T17:48:00Z2015-11-24T17:48:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, Larry Kudlow, CNBC senior contributor, addressed secret cabals intended to pool resources and take down the Republican front-runner, Donald Trump. In response to these reports, Kudlow said, &ldquo;I just really hate that stuff&hellip; We&rsquo;re a democracy, let them all run.&rdquo; The CNBC contributor said, &ldquo;Let things play out...let people vote,&rdquo; suggesting the plots against Trump&rsquo;s campaign undermine the will of the American people in a deeply undemocratic way. He also said the Establishment&rsquo;s anti-Trump crusade greatly resembles the elite opposition to Ronald Reagan. Similarly to Trump, Kudlow says the Establishment worried Reagan &ldquo;would take away their power, which he did, and that he would usher in new policies in a variety of areas and upstage K Street, which he did.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Kudlow, who agrees with Trump on a lot of issues, suggested it wouldn&rsquo;t be the worst thing if the Establishment&rsquo;s power was diminished by a future President Trump. He accused the Establishment of allowing their disdain for the Donald to skew their political priorities, asking, &ldquo;Why don&rsquo;t they put out a message about destroying ISIS? Isn&rsquo;t that more important than cabals against Donald Trump?&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript:<strong>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMzEwNQ==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Let&rsquo;s talk about this secret cabal that the Journal wrote about, I guess on Friday. We don&rsquo;t know much about it, except this Liz Mair girl who was fired or quit out of Scott Walker&rsquo;s office, because she was so open borders, I guess they had some clash there. She&rsquo;s a long time consultant and getting together with another guy, Rick Wilson, and they&rsquo;re trying to get a bunch of people to get money together, pool their resources and take down Trump. What do you make of this? (3:54)</p>
<p><strong>Kudlow: </strong>I hate that stuff. I just really hate that stuff. We&rsquo;re a democracy, let them all run. Donald Trump is doing a pretty good job, if you ask me. I agree with him on a lot of issues, maybe not everything, but I&rsquo;ve interviewed him, I&rsquo;ve known him for years here in New York. He&rsquo;s a pro-growth guy, best I can determine, and he believes America can do a lot better everywhere, and I agree with that. So, I don&rsquo;t get this. Let things play out. We&rsquo;re going to go into primaries, that&rsquo;s what democracies are all about, let people vote. Mr. Trump has come longer and larger than anybody expected, let it go for God&rsquo;s sake, let it go. &nbsp;(4:17)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Do you think this is based in the Establishment&rsquo;s concern that their own fiefdoms are at risk in the consultancy class and the lobbying classes? That some of their power will be diminished, at the very least, in a Trump administration. &nbsp;(5:02)</p>
<p><strong>Kudlow: </strong>It&rsquo;s possible. Don&rsquo;t know if that&rsquo;s the worst thing, is it? I mean, yeah, that&rsquo;s very possible. You know, years ago, I saw this with my former boss Ronald Reagan. The Establishment didn&rsquo;t much care for him, worried he would take away their power, which he did, and that he would usher in new policies in a variety of areas and upstage K Street, which he did. So, I don&rsquo;t know. If Donald Trump gets the votes to be the Republican nominee, God bless him. He&rsquo;s worked hard for it. He&rsquo;s surprised a lot of people. I talk to him periodically. This is nuts, these cabals. Why don&rsquo;t they put out a message about destroying ISIS? Isn&rsquo;t that more important than cabals against Donald Trump? &nbsp;(5:22)</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Kudlow:-Trump-Worries-Elites,-Just-Like-Reagan/-584385974832332424.htmlStaff2015-11-24T17:48:00ZContrary to Media Reports, Refugees a Burden in MaineStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Contrary-to-Media-Reports,-Refugees-a-Burden-in-Maine/-637215508872796053.html2015-11-24T00:32:00Z2015-11-24T00:32:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on <em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, Mary Mayhew, Health and Human Services Commissioner, discussed the massive welfare reforms Maine has implemented over the past four years. Despite immense backlash from the media, Gov. LePage&rsquo;s administration has reduced enrollment in the state&rsquo;s food stamp program by over 58,000. Further, 357,000 individuals were receiving Medicaid in Maine when LePage was elected, a number that has fallen to 287,000.&nbsp; Mayhew attributes the decline to eliminating the waiver of the work requirement previously attached to food stamps; under the new legislation, recipients need to work 20 hours a week, volunteer an hour a day, or attend a class to receive food stamps past 3 months. The program seeks to de-incentivize government and encourage Maine residents to become active in the workforce and economy.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the influx of Somalian refugees over the past several years has, according to Mayhew, taken away from opportunities previously available to residents in Maine. These refugees have had a wide on the welfare program, the education system, and many other aspects of society. Despite recent <a href="http://www.centralmaine.com/2015/11/10/how-a-somali-community-could-help-save-maine/" target="_blank">articles </a>claiming Somalis can save Maine&rsquo;s economy, Mayhew says, &ldquo;overall, we have seen an increased burden to the infrastructure and the welfare programs&rdquo; as a result of the refugees.</p>
<p>Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMzA5NQ==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>My question is a simple on to you, Mary. Have the refugees been a great economic boon to the state, which had been losing population? (9:37)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Mayhew: </strong>This state has been bouncing along the bottom for years. Our challenges economically have been affecting the state and, truly, what is so sad and frustrating is that no one is connecting the dots between the growth of these welfare programs -that it has increased the tax burden of this state, taking critical resources away from infrastructure, from education, and so anything that continues to add to that welfare burden needs to be viewed through the lens of its impact on this state's economic vitality. But, I don&rsquo;t know how to deal with individuals who believe that federal tax dollars are somehow free. I mean, many people have made that argument, that &lsquo;why are we saying no to free federal dollars&rsquo; in the case of, for instance, Medicaid expansion. And, arguing that that somehow is an economic development tool for Maine. That is how fundamentally sad the situation is, when people believe that government is somehow an economic development tool. (9:44 )</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>It&rsquo;s ridiculous. But, my question is a simple one, have the Somalian-African refugees in your state been an economic boon or burden? Overall? (11:06 )</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Mayhew: </strong>Overall we have seen an increased burden to the infrastructure and the welfare programs in the face of other significant competing priorities for this state, especially related to our rapidly aging population, our elderly, and people with significant disabilities. &nbsp;(11:11 )</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Contrary-to-Media-Reports,-Refugees-a-Burden-in-Maine/-637215508872796053.htmlStaff2015-11-24T00:32:00ZObamacare Collapse=Taxpayers' BailoutStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Obamacare-Collapse=Taxpayers-Bailout/605807577315941747.html2015-11-21T01:46:00Z2015-11-21T01:46:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>And so it begins. <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hhs-bailing-out-obamacare-insurers-obligation-of-the-govt/article/2576837" target="_blank">The Washington Kabuki Theater</a>. Throwing good money after bad to try to sustain the unsustainable. United Healthcare threatens to leave in 2017. Government response is to step in with taxpayer dollars. "For the children." Did our physician contributors such as Dr. Ramin Oskoui predict this, or what?&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Obamacare-Collapse=Taxpayers-Bailout/605807577315941747.htmlStaff2015-11-21T01:46:00ZCarlson: World Improvement Should Not Supersede American NeedsStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Carlson:-World-Improvement-Should-Not-Supersede-American-Needs/682978632221746942.html2015-11-20T18:32:00Z2015-11-20T18:32:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, editor in chief of the Daily Caller, Tucker Carlson, addressed the administration&rsquo;s push to bring in thousands of Syrian refugees. Carlson pointed to the first amendment as the most fundamental American value, not &ldquo;letting everyone who wants to move here move here.&rdquo; This contrast highlights a significant division, which Ingraham pointed out yesterday, suggesting the divide is between people who are &ldquo;more the globalist versus the people who are little more populist.&rdquo; The sentiment pushing to open America's borders to thousands of unvetted Syrian refugees is, according to Carlson, &ldquo;just stupid.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Although the majority of Americans, <a href="http://fox6now.com/2015/11/18/poll-53-of-american-adults-dont-want-syrian-refugees-resettled-in-the-united-states/" target="_blank">53%</a>, believe the President should halt plans to accept Syrian refugees, Carlson explained why the administration will move forward with the program. He claims &ldquo;programs like this allow people in power, who are utterly insulated from the consequences of their policies, feel like good people.&rdquo; Morality has been a core argument for continuing to accept Syrian refugees, yet Ingraham pointed out that these programs increase the quality of foreigners&rsquo; lives at the expense of average American workers. The program also benefits the Left electorally, while simultaneously changing the &ldquo;composition of the country.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Ultimately, however, these programs endorse the idea that &ldquo;somehow world improvement supersedes the government&rsquo;s obligation to look out for our needs, the needs of American citizens,&rdquo; a philosophy Carlson called &ldquo;insane.&rdquo; At the end of the day, Carlson said, &ldquo;The U.S. government has one charge, and that is to improve the safety and the standard of living of its population, to make the country safe and prosperous. Period.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript:<strong> [<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMzA5Mw==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Carlson: </strong>I love that fundamental values stuff. The funny thing is the very people who say that have lost sight of what our fundamental values are. I mean, obviously, the most basic American value is freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, freedom to have heterodox beliefs, beliefs that not everyone shares. That&rsquo;s the first amendment, it&rsquo;s the reason it&rsquo;s first in the bill of rights. And, these are exactly the same people, like John Kerry, who just said the other day the Charlie Hebdo attack was legitimate, in a sense. What he meant to say, I think, was it&rsquo;s understandable that people would react violently to views they disagree with. Talk about an un-American sentiment. That sentiment, that impulse he expressed, which is common on the Left, that speech is violent and should be suppressed, that is an attack on our most fundamental values. Our most fundamental value is not letting everyone who wants to move here move here. That&rsquo;s just stupid. It has nothing to do with the history of our country, by the way. (1:47 )</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>I think the fundamental value that the president has held for as long as he&rsquo;s been focusing on these issues is that if the average American&rsquo;s life has to get worse so some guys life can get better in some other country, than that&rsquo;s what has to happen. If the average American worker has to get paid less so we can bring in millions of people from another country, so be it. We just deserve it. We&rsquo;re a terrible rotten country, we have a rotten impulse, and it&rsquo;s time to make sure the world is okay. Or, the world approves of what we&rsquo;re doing. That&rsquo;s his fundamental value. (2:35)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Carlson: </strong>It&rsquo;s really a three-fer because programs like this allow people in power, who are utterly insulated from the consequences of their policies, feel like good people. It makes them feel virtuous, A. B, it changes the composition of the country. And, that&rsquo;s really kind of the aim here. Obama doesn&rsquo;t like the bulk of the people who live in this country, it&rsquo;s not electorally useful to have this current mix that we have, so they want to change it. And, three, there&rsquo;s a direct political benefit to Democrats from immigration and refugee resettlement, because where do &nbsp;you think these people find themselves politically when they go out to vote? Of course, on the Democratic side. So, everything about it is good for him. But, it&rsquo;s not demonstrably good for the public, for the average person. What do you say to the tens of millions of unemployed Americans about this program? That it&rsquo;s going to make your life better? They actually asked that exact question to a Republican presidential candidate this morning, someone I like whose name will go unmentioned, but who&rsquo;s really a decent guy, I think. And, he was honest enough to say, well, it doesn&rsquo;t help their lives directly. Well, good for him for at least admitting that. He&rsquo;s still advocating for it because he said we have this moral obligation to do it anyway, but the bottom line is really simple. The U.S. government has one charge, and that is to improve the safety and the standard of living of its population, to make the country safe and prosperous. Period. That&rsquo;s the only goal the government should have. And, every decision ought to be run through that equation. The idea that somehow world improvement supersedes the government&rsquo;s obligation to look out for our needs, the needs of American citizens, that&rsquo;s insane. That&rsquo;s a totally new idea, by the way, even Woodrow Wilson didn&rsquo;t think that. There&rsquo;s is not a long historic legacy of this in America, this is a new concept thought up by our elites. (3:12)</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Carlson:-World-Improvement-Should-Not-Supersede-American-Needs/682978632221746942.htmlStaff2015-11-20T18:32:00ZBrooks: Politics Is About 'Balancing Values'Staffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Brooks:-Politics-Is-About-Balancing-Values/469816837870889425.html2015-11-19T20:37:00Z2015-11-19T20:37:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on <em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, New York Times columnist, David Brooks, addressed the supposed American &ldquo;tension&rdquo; between protecting the homeland and serving as a member of the global community. According to Ingraham, the American &ldquo;divide really is among people who are really more post-American and people who are more nationalistic, more the globalist versus the people who are little more populist, a little more nationalist, who think America&rsquo;s interest first has to be protected.&rdquo; Applying this theory, Ingraham questioned Brooks on whether America&rsquo;s first and foremost obligation lies with &ldquo;enforcing Syria&rsquo;s borders or making sure that we have a country?&rdquo; Brooks, who failed to see the nationalist-globalist divide Ingraham suggested, stressed that &ldquo;politics is not about solving everything, it&rsquo;s about balancing values.&rdquo; This quest for balance, according to Brooks, has created tension as the United States seeks to reform immigration policy, and extends to the debate over Syrian refugees.</p>
<p>Brooks also addressed the large and growing resentment towards the Republican Establishment. According to a recent poll, only 8% of Republican voters approve of Congress&rsquo; handling of governmental affairs, a shockingly low number, which Brooks shrugged off claiming, &ldquo;Who likes any Establishment these days?&rdquo; When pressed on the division, Brooks admitted the Republican Congress, and specifically former Speaker Boehner, failed to advocate for voters&rsquo; agenda. The NYT columnist also slammed Ted Cruz, claiming he fails to deal with reality as &ldquo;the idea that we can shut down the government through unilateral action when the Democrats control the White House is just not reality.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMzA4Mw==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Why do you think so many Republicans have come to hate the GOP Establishment? The latest poll that came out, November 12, only 8% of Republican voters approve of Congress&rsquo; handling of governmental affairs. (7:02 )</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Brooks: </strong>Who likes any Establishment these days? &nbsp;(7:16)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Why? It&rsquo;s not irrational. There are things that are happening in the country that clearly the overwhelming majority of Republicans disagree with and they want Obama resisted. They don&rsquo;t want a nuanced cooperative agenda with Obama. Clearly, if they did, Boehner would still be speaker and Cantor would still be House Majority Leader. (7:22)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Brooks: </strong>A few things. First, overpromising and under-delivering. Second, the Republican Congress under Boehner, and I thought he did as well as could be expected in some ways, but he was not intellectually or ideologically creative or ambitious, so he didn&rsquo;t really propose things, he didn&rsquo;t put in an agenda for the American people. And, I think Republican voters at least want their agenda thrown out there. So, he didn&rsquo;t do that. But, the idea that we can shut down the government through unilateral action when the Democrats control the White House is just not reality. And, you have to deal with the power centers that exist. I thought Boehner dealt with that fact. Some people like Ted Cruz just refuse to deal with that fact. And, it&rsquo;s easy to make simple statements, but it&rsquo;s hard to actually govern. (7:43)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>I think there&rsquo;s a divide in America, and I see it not really Republican-Democrat or Black-White, those exist, but I think the divide really is among people who are really more post-American and people who are more nationalistic, more the globalist versus the people who are little more populist, a little more nationalist, who think America&rsquo;s interest first has to be protected. The globalists are more about the global understanding, the global community. We have a role in the global community and we have to respect that role before we worry about these yea-who&rsquo;s and all their views on immigration or trade or any of these other issues. What do you think about that? (11:01)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Brooks: </strong>I guess I don&rsquo;t see that. America is a global power. We created an American century, we led an American world order, and that order&rsquo;s under threat. I mean, nation states are falling apart in the Middle East against ISIS. And, you don&rsquo;t have to be globalist to think that American shaped world order was a really good thing in the post-war era. It created a lot of trade, a lot of prosperity, a lot of moving people. And, created the greatest reduction of poverty in human history. And, so, that&rsquo;s being fiercely nationalistic and American, but believing we&rsquo;re part of a universal nation and that we have a vision for the world, which is a democratic vision with freedom, we should be proud of that and we should be championing it. And, that involves a lot of movement of people and movement of goods, a lot trade. (11:45)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Do we have any obligation to our own people first? They haven&rsquo;t gotten a raise in about 15 years. What&rsquo;s our obligation first and foremost to - enforcing Syria&rsquo;s borders or making sure that we have a country? (12:37)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Brooks: </strong>Yeah, there&rsquo;s a good article in the a magazine called First Things, which says immigration policy is a tension between community. We&rsquo;ve got to be cohesive as a people. And, opportunity, and growth, and dynamism, we&rsquo;ve got to bring in people with new ideas and new talents. And, that&rsquo;s a tension. All of politics is trade off. Immigration policy is a trade off between dynamism and community. So, there&rsquo;s no one ultimate answer. You&rsquo;re trying to balance things. That&rsquo;s the kind of conservative I am. I believe that politics is not about solving everything, it&rsquo;s about balancing values. Balancing opposing values. There&rsquo;s a great conservative philosopher, Michael Oakeshott, who said, &lsquo;If you&rsquo;re on a boat and it&rsquo;s tilting too far this way so you lean that way, it leans too far the other you lean that way&rdquo; and you&rsquo;re just trying to get the balance right. (12:48 )</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Brooks:-Politics-Is-About-Balancing-Values/469816837870889425.htmlStaff2015-11-19T20:37:00ZThe Outsiders ARE the MainstreamStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/The-Outsiders-ARE-the-Mainstream/775485938379003279.html2015-11-19T19:35:00Z2015-11-19T19:35:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p><strong>PPP Poll: &nbsp;Trump 26, Carson 19, Cruz 14, Marco 13, Jeb 5</strong></p>
<p>That's 59 percent for the combination of Trump/Carson/Cruz.&nbsp; If you add Carly (4 percent), Huckabee (4 percent), and Rand Paul (2 percent), that's 69 percent of the GOP &ndash; over two thirds of the party &ndash; who are supporting an outsider candidate.</p>
<p>Under these circumstances, the notion that the populists are just some sort of fringe group within the party is becoming more and more difficult to defend.&nbsp; In this poll, for example, only 27 percent of Republican voters had a favorable view of Jeb &ndash; while 50 percent had a negative opinion of him.&nbsp; The time has come for the GOP to move in a more populist direction, and the Establishment continues to resist this development at its peril.</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/The-Outsiders-ARE-the-Mainstream/775485938379003279.htmlStaff2015-11-19T19:35:00ZTrump: Too Early To Tell Who Will Be VPStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Trump:-Too-Early-To-Tell-Who-Will-Be-VP/172948606627483923.html2015-11-17T18:04:00Z2015-11-17T18:04:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on <em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, presidential candidate Donald Trump, slammed the Establishment favorites, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and former governor Jeb Bush (R-FL), asserting neither will receive the Republican nomination. Trump, prefacing his critique saying, &ldquo;I&rsquo;m going to be nice,&rdquo; emphasized Rubio&rsquo;s &ldquo;pathetically weak&rdquo; stance on immigration. According to the Republican frontrunner, Rubio&rsquo;s involvement with the Gang of 8, coupled with his continued push for amnesty and legalization, will prevent him from being able to secure the nomination. Although Trump said, &ldquo;you can&rsquo;t watch television without seeing a [Jeb Bush] ad, all paid for by special interests and lobbyists,&rdquo; he believes the former governor&rsquo;s campaign is finished.</p>
<p>The billionaire also addressed potential vice-president picks, making special note of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). Trump and Cruz have been allies on the issue of illegal immigration throughout their campaigns, allowing the two to form a connection. Though Trump maintained it is too early to officially choose a VP, he admitted, &ldquo;I like [Cruz]. He&rsquo;s been very, very strong towards me. He&rsquo;s backed everything I&rsquo;ve said.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript [<strong><a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMzA2MQ==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a></strong>]</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">***</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Why would someone like a Rubio not be the face of a demographically changing country? (4:00)</p>
<p><strong>Trump: </strong>Well, I&rsquo;m going to be nice. I&rsquo;ll be a little bit nastier as time goes by, I guess, but I&rsquo;ll be nice. But, Rubio is not going to be the one. It&rsquo;s not going to happen. He doesn&rsquo;t have the gravitas. It&rsquo;s not going to be Rubio. And, frankly, that would be the wrong one in this case. I think Bush probably is finished. I see his ads though, one after the other. You can&rsquo;t watch television without seeing an ad, all paid for by special interests and lobbyists and everything else, but I see the ads all over the place. So, I don&rsquo;t think it&rsquo;s going to be Bush and I don&rsquo;t think it&rsquo;s going to be Rubio either. Rubio, by the way, is very, very weak on illegal immigration. A member of the Gang of 8, which said, basically, come on in, folks, just come on in. Extremely strong on amnesty. I don&rsquo;t think it can be him. He&rsquo;s very, very, very weak and pathetically weak on immigration and, in my opinion, that ends his shot. &nbsp;(4:01)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Are there any in the field who you&rsquo;ve gotten to know, even casually, who you would consider for the vice-presidency? (5:15 )</p>
<p><strong>Trump: </strong>Well, I like a number of them actually. I&rsquo;ve gotten along with a number of them and they&rsquo;re terrific people. It&rsquo;s just too early to say, because the next question is about vice-presidential and it&rsquo;s a little bit early to say. I&rsquo;ve had a lot of victories and I like to do victories first and then start thinking about other things. But, I have actually had a good relationship with a number of them up on the platform. (5:17)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Can&rsquo;t narrow it down? Ted Cruz? &nbsp;(5:41)</p>
<p><strong>Trump: </strong>I like him, he&rsquo;s been very, very strong towards me. He&rsquo;s backed everything I&rsquo;ve said. (5:45)</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Trump:-Too-Early-To-Tell-Who-Will-Be-VP/172948606627483923.htmlStaff2015-11-17T18:04:00ZGov. Abbott: Syrians Are Crossing Our Southern & Northern BorderStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Gov.-Abbott:-Syrians-Are-Crossing-Our-Southern--Northern-Border/-224237360469938167.html2015-11-16T18:35:00Z2015-11-16T18:35:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on <em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) discussed the decision to, in light of last week&rsquo;s terrorist attacks in Paris, refuse the resettlement of Syrians in Texas. Gov. Abbott is one of <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/260260-obama-hits-bush-refugee-plan-as-not-american" target="_blank">six</a> governors - Govs. Snyder (R-MI), Bentley (R-AL), Jindal (R-LA), Hutchinson (R-AK), &nbsp;and Pence (R-IN) - who have issued statements halting the resettlement of Syrian refugees in their state, seeking to prioritize the safety of American residents. Although the Obama administration has repeatedly referenced a &ldquo;robust vetting&rdquo; system for Syrian refugees, Abbott said these claims directly contradict the FBI director who has admitted the government does not have the ability to conduct security checks on Syrian nationals.</p>
<p>Abbott also pointed out the FBI is well aware that &ldquo;people from Syria, people from other countries of interest, are crossing our border to a large extent.&rdquo; The governor said, &ldquo;I couldn&rsquo;t even count the number&hellip; it&rsquo;s in the hundreds, of the number of Syrians who have crossed our Southern border.&rdquo; He also noted the real number of crossings is drastically higher, as those who have not been apprehended are excluded in that count. More significantly, however, Abbott highlighted the scope of America&rsquo;s border problems, claiming &ldquo;Syrians are crossing the Northern border as well.&rdquo; Though he was unable to release evidence at this time, the governor reiterated, &ldquo;Texas is not the only location.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Though the current focus is on threats posed by Syrian refugees, Gov. Abbott acknowledged there is a &ldquo;broad swath&rdquo; of people crossing the border, including a large and growing number of Somalians. And, while Abbott admitted the humanitarian efforts are important, he argued &ldquo;we must first and foremost be humanitarian with the people in the United States of America.&rdquo;</p>
<p>President Obama defended his strategy against ISIS today, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/world/europe/obama-says-paris-attacks-have-stiffened-resolve-to-crush-isis.html" target="_blank">saying</a> &ldquo;We do not somehow start equating the issue of refugees with the issue of terrorism.&rdquo; However, Abbott says, &ldquo;the connection between what is going on within just the state of Texas and members of ISIS is very real and very public.&rdquo; Abbott also prepared to blame the president&rsquo;s &nbsp;&ldquo;if something like what happened in Paris happens in the United States, it is because of the federal government&rsquo;s complete lack of control over our border and over these refugees crossing our border.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript [<strong><a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp;jsessionid=B95C79B643B9A042822AD6CD3D5902DD?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMzA0Nw==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a></strong>]</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">***</p>
<p><strong>Abbott: </strong>I couldn&rsquo;t even count the number, I actually asked for a count, and it&rsquo;s in the hundreds, of the number of Syrians who have crossed our southern border who have been apprehended. And, mind you, those are the ones who are apprehended. And, my view also, a Syrian coming across the Southern border is not someone coming over here to work in the agricultural fields. We don&rsquo;t know who these people are or what they&rsquo;re doing. But, we do know they&rsquo;re coming from a nation or a state that is connected with terrorism, posing very real danger to the people in this state and in this country. I sent a letter to the President and I said specifically this, &lsquo;Neither you or any federal official can guarantee that Syrian refugees will not be part of any terroristic activity.&rsquo; (1:38)</p>
<p><strong>Abbott: </strong>What the President said today, and what the President has said repeatedly, has been contradicted by the FBI director who testified to Congress last month that the federal government does not have the ability to conduct proper security checks on Syrian nationals. He said, and I&rsquo;m going to quote, &lsquo;We can query our database until the cows come home. But, there will be nothing showing up because we have no record of them.&rsquo; If the FBI and all the other federal officials say we can&rsquo;t track these people, they can&rsquo;t distinguish whether this person is going to be dangerous or not dangerous, it is insanity to allow these people to be coming into our nation. &nbsp;(2:32)</p>
<p><em>Clip Two</em></p>
<p><strong>Abbott: </strong>There&rsquo;s a reason for it, Laura. And, that is because [Obama] is putting Americans at danger. And, he&rsquo;s done that in two ways. One, by not engaging ISIS to begin with, everyone knows, back when he called ISIS the JV and he got hit on that this morning. And, now they&rsquo;ve turned into not just the Varsity, but reigning champions over in the region by controlling the entire region over there. And, France is responding appropriately. I was so proud to see those jets taking off all night last night as they were going on bombing missions. But, the second reason why the President is taking heat is because there is one fundamental responsibility, more than any other, that anybody who takes the oath of office, whether it be as president or as governor or as mayor, and that is, first and foremost, we must keep our people safe. And, the policies that are being pursued by this president are endangering our fellow Americans. As we were talking about earlier, federal officials have admitted they have absolutely no way whatsoever of being able to track these people who they are admitting into the United States from Syria as refugees, and because of that we don&rsquo;t know whether or not one or more, or any of these people, could pose the kind of danger that the Syrian refugees posed in Paris. Remember this, we know that at least one of the people, maybe more than one of the people, who were involved in the Paris attacks were Syrian refugees. It is reprehensible for the United States of America to allow any Syrian refugee across our border knowing full well that we can keep them out, that we must keep them out, if we are to keep our fellow Americans safe. (3:20)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Apparently the Congress just learned last week about the resettlement in Louisiana and some of the other resettlement that has been going on, and continues to go on in Arizona and beyond. So, Congress is not being kept up to date about where these people are being sent until the last possible minute. The reason I think this is, is that they know the public is against this. So, they&rsquo;re not releasing information until it&rsquo;s too late. &nbsp;(5:17)</p>
<p><strong>Abbott: </strong>&nbsp;If something like what happened in Paris happens in the United States, it is because of the federal government&rsquo;s complete lack of control over our border and over these refugees who are crossing our border. (6:49)</p>
<p><strong>Abbott: </strong>What I don&rsquo;t know, and what has not been reported to me from the Texas Department of Public Safety, is the extent to which the FBI, or any other federal officials, are maintaining any ongoing monitoring or control. What I can tell you is that part of the information I have is public information, and that is the number of people who have been crossing the border and the countries from which they have come. And, so it is a known fact that can be publically discussed that people in the state of Texas, as well as federal officials, are fully aware that Syrians are crossing our border, as well as people who come from other countries of interest. I&rsquo;ve got to tell you, the Somalians who are coming across our border are just as dangerous as the Syrians. And, we have Somalians coming across here. We&rsquo;ve had members of Hezbollah who have been arrested here in the state of Texas. So, this isn&rsquo;t just one grouping of people, this is a massive, broad swath of people who are crossing our border who pose a serious danger in our country. And, just like France welcomed these people, just like Germany is welcoming these people, and they are now paying a heavy price for it, we cannot allow our fellow Americans to pay the same heavy price that people in Paris just paid because of this notion that we are a welcoming nation, which we are. And, the humanitarian efforts are important. But, we must first and foremost be humanitarian with the people in the United States of America. (7:27)</p>
<p><strong>Abbott: </strong>I can tell you for a fact there is definitive proof that people from Syria, people from other countries of interest, are crossing our border to a large extent. But, let&rsquo;s even put that aside. It is a fact, because the FBI was involved and this is very public, that two ISIS terrorists launched a gun attack in Garner, Texas. It shows what Texas is made out of when just a single Garner police officer was able to take down both of those ISIS terrorists. It is a fact that the FBI arrested an Iraqi born man in Texas and charged him with lying to federal agents about traveling to Syria to fight with terrorists. And, it&rsquo;s a fact that the Attorney General of Texas worked with a joint terrorism task force that arrested two people in Texas for providing material support to terrorists, including ISIS. So, the connection between what is going on within just the state of Texas and members of ISIS is very real, very public. And, those are just the ones that are easy to find and very public. (10:02 )</p>
<p><strong>Abbott: </strong>I&rsquo;ve got news for you, and that is Syrians are crossing the northern border as well. &nbsp;(11:47)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>What&rsquo;s your evidence for that? (11:49)</p>
<p><strong>Abbott: </strong>Well, I know that Syrians are crossing the northern border as well. &nbsp;(11:50)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>You can&rsquo;t tell us why or how? (11:58 )</p>
<p><strong>Abbott: </strong>No, but I&rsquo;m just telling you that Texas is not the only location. (12:02)</p>
&nbsp; <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Gov.-Abbott:-Syrians-Are-Crossing-Our-Southern--Northern-Border/-224237360469938167.htmlStaff2015-11-16T18:35:00ZFiorina & Cruz: No TPP in Lame DuckStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Fiorina--Cruz:-No-TPP-in-Lame-Duck/-702701838343206537.html2015-11-12T18:05:00Z2015-11-12T18:05:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, Ingraham addressed reports that Congress will put off voting on the Trans-Pacific Partnership until after the presidential election, meaning the vote will take place during a lame duck session. Today, presidential candidates Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Carly Fiorina emphatically opposed this decision. According to Cruz, &ldquo;under no circumstances should the TPP be voted on during a lame duck session.&rdquo; He argued no conservative would want &ldquo;a bunch of members who have just been defeated or retiring passing big government, liberal policies.&rdquo; Instead, members need to be held accountable for their votes, meaning the vote should take place prior to the presidential election.</p>
<p>Fiorina, who is running as a political outsider, claims postponing the vote would be &ldquo;so typical&rdquo; of politicians. The former HP CEO echoed Cruz, saying &ldquo;Let&rsquo;s have people stand up and be held accountable to this thing.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript</p>
<p>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMzAxOQ==" target="_blank"><strong>LISTEN to Ted Cruz</strong></a>]</p>
<p>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMzAyNw==" target="_blank"><strong>LISTEN to Carly Fiorina</strong></a>]</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">****</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>On the Trans-Pacific Partnership, not a lot discussed on that the other night. It looks like there&rsquo;s a report out that the vote on the TPP, 5,544 pages long, could be put off to a lame duck session after the presidential election. Will you call on Congress to vote on this this year, so we know where everyone stands, and not after the election? (15:37 )</p>
<p><strong>Cruz: </strong>I think under no circumstances should the TPP be voted on during a lame duck session. And, in fact, if a Republican wins in 2016, which I believe will happen, I don&rsquo;t think we should have a lame duck session. No conservative would want a bunch of members who have just been defeated or retiring, passing big government, liberal policies with Obama in office. TPP needs to be voted on where members are accountable, and I&rsquo;ll tell you, I am very, very skeptical about TPP. This thing is 6,000 pages, it is negotiated by a president who has undercut American workers at every level, and I think it is a mistake to be undercutting the working men and women of this country. (16:01)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>There is apparently a move, and POLITICO has reported on this, to put off the TPP vote until after the presidential election. Meaning, it takes place in a lame duck session where we have a lot of retiring senators and so forth voting on this. What is your reaction to this report? (6:45)</p>
<p><strong>Fiorina: </strong>That&rsquo;s terrible. And, it would be so typical. It would be so typical. Because, people are afraid to stand up and be held accountable. And, by the way, a tough vote is not a tough call. A tough vote is not a real decision. But, we have a lot of politicians who are afraid even to be held accountable for their votes. Let&rsquo;s have people stand up and be held accountable to this thing. But, I think what that suggests is that people understand this deal is in trouble. And, I think what that suggests is, by the way good, I&rsquo;m glad it&rsquo;s in trouble, but I think what it suggests is people say &lsquo;Oh, the president doesn&rsquo;t want a defeat&rsquo; and &nbsp;a lot of Republicans don&rsquo;t want to be held accountable for a vote, up or down. This is why people are fed up with government, it&rsquo;s why people are fed up with politicians, it&rsquo;s why 82% of the American people think we have a professional political class that cares more about the preservation of it&rsquo;s own power than on getting anything done on behalf of the American people. I agree with them. It&rsquo;s why I&rsquo;m running. (7:02)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Fiorina--Cruz:-No-TPP-in-Lame-Duck/-702701838343206537.htmlStaff2015-11-12T18:05:00ZCandidates Warn: Don't Trust Rubio on ImmigrationStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Candidates-Warn:-Dont-Trust-Rubio-on-Immigration/232029736655985462.html2015-11-12T17:59:00Z2015-11-12T17:59:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on <em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, three Republican presidential candidates, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), and Carly Fiorina, weighed in on Rubio&rsquo;s shift right on the issue of immigration. Following the debate, Rubio <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/12/rubio-people-dont-trust-feds-immigration-laws/" target="_blank">confessed</a> a main lesson he learned was that Americans lack trust in the federal government to enforce the immigration laws in the country. The three outsider candidates, however, voiced concerns about the authenticity of Rubio&rsquo;s metamorphosis. Pointing to Rubio&rsquo;s history with the Schumer-Rubio bill, Fiorina said, &ldquo;actions speak louder than words.&rdquo; Cruz echoed this sentiment, admitting he treats Rubio&rsquo;s new message on immigration with &ldquo;a pretty healthy degree of skepticism.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Despite Rubio&rsquo;s recent comments about immigration, Paul, Fiorina, and Cruz are hesitant to forgive the Florida senator for his relationship with Sen. Schumer (D-NY) and, particularly, for his unwillingness to vote for any conservative, border enforcement amendment. Sen. Cruz put forward several amendments to the bill, stressing the importance of border security and aiming to prevent illegal immigrants from receiving welfare benefits. Rubio, Cruz says, &ldquo;opposed every single one of them. Every single amendment.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Sen. Paul, among others, also attempted to pass an amendment to the controversial bill; his amendment, Trust but Verify, would have required Congress to vote every year on whether or not the border was secure. After decades of empty promises from administrations regarding border security, this amendment aimed to put pressure on the Congress and the President to finally seal the border. Paul not only voiced skepticism due to the Gang of 8 bill. The Kentucky senator referenced Rubio&rsquo;s tax plan, which he claims would &ldquo;explode payments to illegal aliens.&rdquo; For a nation in tremendous debt, Paul warned against the dangers of spending four billion dollars granting tax credits to these illegal aliens.</p>
<p>Partial Transcript</p>
<p>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMzAxOQ==" target="_blank"><strong>LISTEN to Ted Cruz</strong></a>]</p>
<p>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMzAyMQ==" target="_blank"><strong>LISTEN to Rand Paul</strong></a>]</p>
<p>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMzAyNw==" target="_blank"><strong>LISTEN to Carly Fiorina</strong></a>]</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">****</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>I want to ask you about one of your rivals, chiefly Marco Rubio, who lately is sounding much more conservative on immigration. I want to play a soundbite for you and have you react to it. . . Your reaction to that? (5:15)</p>
<p><strong>Cruz: </strong>Well, my reaction in all of politics is, &lsquo;talk is cheap,&rsquo; that you know where someone is based on their actions. As scripture says, &lsquo;You shall know them by their fruits.&rsquo; We had an epic battle, in Congress, just a couple years ago - we&rsquo;re not talking about ten, twenty years ago, this was just a couple years ago - on the question of amnesty. And, the argument that we need to secure the border first was an argument I was making over and over again, it was an argument that you were making over and over again, it was an argument Jeff Sessions was making over and over again. And, all the folks on the other side dismissed it, said we were wrong-headed and anti-immigrant for believing we should actually secure the borders. I have a deep and genuine disagreement with that view, so I&rsquo;ve got to say, as a voter, when politicians saying the exact opposite of what they&rsquo;ve done in office, I treat that with a pretty healthy degree of skepticism. (5:54)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Refresh our memory about the enforcement amendments that were offered and similarly defeated. One I think you proposed, another Jeff Sessions proposed. Did Marco Rubio support any of those amendments? (6:56 )</p>
<p><strong>Cruz: </strong>He opposed every single one of them. Every single amendment. &nbsp;(7:19)</p>
<p>&nbsp;<strong>Ingraham: </strong>On the matter of enforcement there many amendments put forward by you, Jeff Sessions, and others. What happened with Rubio&rsquo;s either supporting them or not supporting them? (8:25)</p>
<p><strong>Cruz: </strong>Well, for example, I introduced an amendment in the Judiciary Committee to triple the border patrol, to increase four-fold the fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft, to put in place a strong E-Verify system, to put in place a strong exit-entry system for visa overstays. And, every Senate Democrat on the Committee voted against it and the sponsors of the Gang of 8. The Gang of 8, all eight of them, agreed to vote against every amendment that would strengthen the bill from an enforcement perspective. And, they voted against one after the other, so the Republican sponsors and the Democrats voted against that amendment. And, I introduced another amendment, Laura, that simply said anyone who&rsquo;s here illegally that would be inelligible for government welfare benefits - remember the Gang of 8 was saying over and over again, they wouldn&rsquo;t get welfare. I said, fine, let&rsquo;s put it in the law, they won&rsquo;t get welfare. Every Democrat voted against it and every Republican sponsor of the bill voted against it. And, they voted as a block over and over and over again, after amendment after amendment. Jeff Sessions introduced amendment after amendment. I introduced amendment after amendment. And, the Gang of 8 voted as a gang against enforcing and securing the border. (8:30)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>What of the Establishment favorite&rsquo;s [Rubio&rsquo;s] metamorphosis? Are you buying this? (4:38)</p>
<p><strong>Fiorina: </strong>Well, first of all, this is what politicians do, Laura. They talk. They talk. And, specifically, they say what they think they need to say to get elected. I mean, honestly, we shouldn&rsquo;t be surprised. Marco Rubio wouldn&rsquo;t be the only politician to change his mind about something, and, yes, you&rsquo;re quite right, he&rsquo;s changed his mind about a lot of things. In the world I come from, and actually the world you come from, actions speak louder than words. And, you judge people&rsquo;s words over time. So, I&rsquo;m not at all surprised. This is why we need to do something different. We need to take our government back. &nbsp;(4:45 )</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Marco Rubio didn&rsquo;t really respond to your point: how is it conservative to allow our debt to envelop us. And also, the debt that ultimately is bought by some of our adversaries, like China, and some of our economic competitors and people we&rsquo;re competing with for economic opportunities, like Japan or Germany. I never heard an answer to that. &nbsp;(1:28)</p>
<p><strong>Paul: </strong>I think Rubio&rsquo;s plan would explode payments to illegal aliens. And, this is a real problem. Until we fix the current tax credits, do we really want to double and triple the amount of tax credits we&rsquo;re giving? I mean, really, four billion dollars to illegal aliens? I think Rubio&rsquo;s tax credit plan will extend more tax credits to illegal aliens and I think there&rsquo;s no way in the world we should be supporting something like this. &nbsp;(1:53 )</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>The question of immigration, Rubio over the last few days and few weeks, has upped his metamorphosis. Of course, Gang of 8, we had you on many times during the Gang of 8 discussion, Senator Paul. He led them, with Schumer, came up with this bill, it was a total disaster, the people rose up, said no you won&rsquo;t. We just talked to Sen. Cruz who reminded us of all the enforcement provisions that were offered as amendments, each of them defeated by the block of Gang of 8, Democrats and Republicans, who were in the Gang of 8, all voted against every single border enforcement measure. (4:03)</p>
<p><strong>Paul: </strong>This is an incredibly important point. There was a secret deal made between Rubio and Schumer to block all the conservative amendments. I put one forward called Trust but Verify, and it said that if you want to do any kind of immigration reform, you have to come back to Congress every year and Congress has to vote on whether or not the border is secure. I call it Trust but Verify - if you want reforms, the problem is the president always promises, for the last couple decades presidents have promised, that they will secure the border. Mine would have said Congress has to vote every year on it, but the secret deal between Rubio and Schumer said, we are going to block all amendments. So, they blocked all the conservative enforcement amendments, including mine, called Trust but Verify, but simply because Rubio went along with Chuck Schumer and there was a secret deal made. They voted in block against every conservative reform that we brought forward. (4:41)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Candidates-Warn:-Dont-Trust-Rubio-on-Immigration/232029736655985462.htmlStaff2015-11-12T17:59:00ZBartiromo: 'Unfortunate' Rubio Not Asked About Gang of 8Staffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Bartiromo:-Unfortunate-Rubio-Not-Asked-About-Gang-of-8/-519304816123044914.html2015-11-11T16:04:00Z2015-11-11T16:04:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on <em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, Maria Bartiromo, Global Markets Editor at Fox News Business, reflected on the questions asked during last night&rsquo;s GOP debate. Bartiromo, who moderated the debate alongside Gerard Baker and Neil Cavuto, admitted Marco Rubio should have been asked about his involvement with the Schumer-Rubio bill, saying &ldquo;conservatives wanted to hear him on the record.&rdquo; According to Bartiromo, today&rsquo;s job market cannot be evaluated without considering the huge influx of foreign workers. Bartiromo acknowledged that Butler, who asked the question to Rubio, should have &ldquo;mushed the question together of foreigners coming in, but also machines.&rdquo;</p>
<p>In reflecting on questions, she also regretted not following up on Donald Trump&rsquo;s statement regarding Russian involvement in Syria. Trump, when asked about how he would respond to Russian aggression in Syria, said &ldquo;if Putin wants to go and knocked the hell out of ISIS, I am all for it, 100%.&rdquo; Bartiromo&rsquo;s follow-up question was unfortunately nixed due to time constraints, but she told Ingraham she wanted to ask, &ldquo;Can you still support Israel by allowing the Middle East and Russia to fight it out?&rdquo; Clearly, though last night&rsquo;s debate was the most substantive yet, many questions remain for the upcoming debates.</p>
<p>Partial Transcript [<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMzAwOQ==" target="_blank"><strong>LISTEN</strong></a>]</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">****</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>There was a part of the debate that was very interesting where both Kasich and Jeb Bush came out and discussed immigration reform. Pretty much just reciting their stump speech in their answers on how we need immigration reform and people are going to pay back taxes and a fine, and then they can stay in the country, that that&rsquo;s the sensible thing to do. Then came time to ask the guy who actually co-authored the Gang of 8 bill about immigration and, it wasn&rsquo;t you who asked the question about immigration, Mr. Baker asked the question, but let&rsquo;s listen . . .</p>
<p>A lot of us who have been covering this immigration debate, Maria, wondered why Marco Rubio wasn&rsquo;t asked the tough question of the Gang of 8 bill and he was pegged to deliver to the American people, he was asked some question about robots. That seemed odd to me. (4:46)</p>
<p><strong>Bartiromo: </strong>Yeah, you&rsquo;re right. I mean look, I think that question should have been asked, it&rsquo;s true. I think that conservatives wanted to hear him on the record. But, what Baker was going for there was just the changing jobs market. But you cannot look at that today without considering the fact that we have foreigners coming in and taking the jobs that Americans need. And, that is the bottom line. And so, he should have mushed the question together of foreigners coming in, but also machines. Because the truth is, the economy is changing and companies are replacing people with machines, there&rsquo;s no doubt about it. So, we were trying to consolidate questions I think and that got lost in the mix, and it&rsquo;s unfortunate because people want to see his feet held to the fire on this issue. (6:07)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Bartiromo:-Unfortunate-Rubio-Not-Asked-About-Gang-of-8/-519304816123044914.htmlStaff2015-11-11T16:04:00ZCarlson: Bush Attacks on Rubio 'Repulsive'Staffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Carlson:-Bush-Attacks-on-Rubio-Repulsive/-92063022060284275.html2015-11-10T17:41:00Z2015-11-10T17:41:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on <em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, Tucker Carlson, co-founder and editor in chief of The Daily Caller, responded to Jeb Bush&rsquo;s new attacks against Florida Sen. Marco Rubio. According to a recent NY Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/10/us/politics/bush-allies-threaten-wave-of-harsh-attacks-on-rubio-an-ex-mentee.html" target="_blank">piece</a>, Jeb is aware he will not be able to secure the GOP nomination, which Carlson attributes to being &ldquo;out of touch with the desires of the electorate on the Republican side.&rdquo; Despite sinking in the polls, however, Jeb&rsquo;s campaign has chosen to go after Rubio&rsquo;s staunch pro-life beliefs, claiming the senator opposes abortion too fervently. According to reports, Mike Murphy, who runs Jeb&rsquo;s Super PAC, Right to Rise, told donors the PAC would be prepared to devote up to $20 million fighting Sen. Rubio, which Ingraham predicts will lead to &ldquo;armageddon for the GOP.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Baffled by the Jeb campaigns tactics attacking Rubio, Carlson questioned why &ldquo;of all the things you could criticize Marco Rubio for,&rdquo; Jeb&rsquo;s campaign chose to attack him on an issue many conservatives, himself included, agree with Rubio on. Carlson claims these new attacks reveal who the Bushes really are, saying &ldquo;They pivot Left and attack him from the Left on that issue, because they think the donor class will agree with them. It&rsquo;s repulsive.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript [<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMzAwMw==" target="_blank"><strong>LISTEN</strong></a>]</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">****</p>
<p><strong>Carlson: I was starting to feel sorry for Jeb, obviously he&rsquo;s not going to be the nominee, it&rsquo;s not his year. I don't think he&rsquo;s a terrible person, I just think he&rsquo;s out of touch with the desires of the electorate on the Republican side. So, he&rsquo;s not going to get it.</strong> But, now that piece suggests that he knows he&rsquo;s not going to get it, but he&rsquo;s going to become a kamikaze pilot anyway. He&rsquo;s going to destroy as much as he possibly can and, on the wrong grounds. Here&rsquo;s what was especially upsetting - they&rsquo;re going after Rubio because he opposes abortion too much, he&rsquo;s too conservative for America. Really? Isn&rsquo;t this is Jeb Bush who, I remember him telling y&rsquo;all about it, what a pro-lifer he was, a Catholic, and really believes in the ethics of life. And, now they&rsquo;re attack on Rubio is just he opposes abortion too fervently, and don&rsquo;t vote for him. (4:11)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Let me tell you what Tucker is referring to. This is Mike Murphy, who runs the Bush Super PAC, called the Right to Rise. I think it&rsquo;s more like the Right to Deflate, but it&rsquo;s called the Right to Rise, and they recently showed some donors a video portraying Mr. Rubio as too extreme on abortion. A long time opponent of abortion rights, and that&rsquo;s why the New York Times refers to it &lsquo;abortion rights,&rsquo; Mr. Rubio said in a debate in August that he had never advocated laws that would allow abortions, even in the cases of rape or incest. So, Murphy has privately said to several people that Right to Rise would be ready to devote up to $20 million to fighting Mr. Rubio, according to several people. Asked about the figure, Mr. Murphy declined to comment. Well, this is going to be Armageddon for the GOP. If this is the way the Bushes consider their service to the country - he&rsquo;s at 4% in some of these new polls, he&rsquo;s down in fifth place in Florida, Tucker, but his mission is going to be to destroy Rubio, and others, apparently. Not for the betterment of America, but to destroy the other candidates, making it easier for Hillary Clinton to win the nomination. &nbsp;(4:59 )</p>
<p><strong>Carlson: </strong>In Florida, which, of course, that is the whole rationale behind his campaign, he was the popular two-term governor of the state. He&rsquo;s trailing Donald Trump by 31 points in Florida. That tells you everything you really need to know about this race. And, I would think a clear thinking campaign operative would see that and react accordingly. Instead, they&rsquo;re going after Rubio on basically the only issue on which, speaking for myself, I sincerely agree with him, his opposition to abortion. He&rsquo;s very articulate in that, I would say. He&rsquo;s a very good spokesman for the pro-life case. And, that&rsquo;s the thing the Bush people pick out of all the things you could criticize Marco Rubio for? They criticize him for that? It really is so revealing. <strong>It tells you who they really are when it comes right down to it. They pivot Left and attack him from the Left on that issue, because they think the donor class will agree with them. It&rsquo;s repulsive.</strong> (6:13)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Carlson:-Bush-Attacks-on-Rubio-Repulsive/-92063022060284275.htmlStaff2015-11-10T17:41:00ZHuckabee Proposes New Debate Structure, Christie AgreesStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Huckabee-Proposes-New-Debate-Structure,-Christie-Agrees/-692728515704789912.html2015-11-09T17:34:00Z2015-11-09T17:34:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on <em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) expressed his enthusiasm for a series of smaller debates, allowing candidates to speak more substantively on &ldquo;actual issues as opposed to process.&rdquo; Ingraham has proposed the idea of one-on-one debates to several candidates, arguing this setting would allow voters to get a better sense of who the candidates are and where they stand. Gov. Huckabee was not only enthusiastic, but proposed his own debate structure. The former Arkansas governor hypothesized a two and a half hour debate, suggesting each candidate draw numbers to pair up. And, in the structure proposed by Huckabee, candidates would not know who they were up against until they walk out onto the stage. Alternatively, Huckabee suggested two debates of seven randomly selected candidates, rather than a primetime and undercard debate, which is how the current debates are structured.</p>
<p>Last week, Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) expressed similar enthusiasm for smaller, more substantive debates. The governor said he was willing to debate, &ldquo;anytime, anywhere,&rdquo; arguing candidates would have a better opportunity to share their ideas with voters, which is ultimately what they owe to the American people.<br /><br /> Partial Transcript [<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjk4Nw==" target="_blank"><strong>LISTEN</strong></a>]</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">****</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Would you be in favor of having smaller debates? Instead of this first stage, second stage, approach that we have right now? I tossed this around with a few candidates and they all seem very game to do it, in other words, maybe you have one debate with Chris Christie, then you move on to, maybe there&rsquo;s a conversation Marco Rubio has, a debate or a back-and-forth, without any moderators. But, Marco Rubio versus Carson, or maybe Trump versus Jeb, or you versus Jeb. I just think that would be so helpful to the voters, Gov. Huckabee, because then you speak each for ten minutes on each topic, two minute rebuttal of each side. Then you move on to the next topic. It gives the people a sense to see who you really are and what you&rsquo;re about on these issues of our day. To me, that&rsquo;s where someone like you shines, where someone like Christie, probably does pretty well in that. I think everyone would benefit from that. (6:32)</p>
<p><strong>Huckabee: </strong>We would be focusing on actual issues as opposed to the process. I like that idea, I think one way to do it is, say you&rsquo;re going to have two and a half hours, and everybody goes and they draw numbers. And, as they draw numbers, that pairs them up, and when they go on stage one-on-one you don&rsquo;t know who you&rsquo;re going to be paired against until you walk on that stage or walk up that night. And, then you have maybe 15, 20 minutes with the two of you, and you go after it. But, there&rsquo;s also an equal amount of time and a time clock for each of you, and if someone wants to just drone on and on, it&rsquo;s going against his countdown clock. When his countdown clock is finished, he&rsquo;s done, his mic is turned off. One of the things that&rsquo;s happened is the rules haven&rsquo;t been enforced. Some candidates can get away with going well beyond the clock, others, like me, get called out the second the clock hits zero on the one minute responses, which, by the way, one minute response? You&rsquo;re running for president. The hosts take more time asking their questions than they give us to answer them, and I think that&rsquo;s an insult as well. (7:31)</p>
<p><strong>Huckabee: </strong>Another option is to put all of the candidates names in a hat, I&rsquo;m willing to do this, even when I was on the big stage I was saying, let&rsquo;s put people like Jindal, Santorum Graham, Pataki, put their names in a hat. You have two numbers, one and two, and right before the debate everyone goes in and draws. Seven in one, seven in the other. Bang. Let&rsquo;s do it. &nbsp;(9:21)</p>
<p><strong>Christie: </strong>Anytime, anywhere. You want to put me one on one with Marco Rubio, one on one with Jeb Bush, one on one with Ted Cruz, I think that&rsquo;s what this country needs to hear. You need to hear from us to take the measure of our character and the measure of the quality of our ideas. I would not hesitate to debate anyone, any place. I&rsquo;ve been through it in New Jersey and I&rsquo;m more than happy to do it at any time in this context, running for president. It&rsquo;s what we owe the American people. (14:16)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Huckabee-Proposes-New-Debate-Structure,-Christie-Agrees/-692728515704789912.htmlStaff2015-11-09T17:34:00ZChristie Urges Ryan to Vote No on TPPStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Christie-Urges-Ryan-to-Vote-No-on-TPP/-443508913789215370.html2015-11-06T18:55:00Z2015-11-06T18:55:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on <em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) addressed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which was leaked yesterday. Though Christie admitted he had not read the trade deal, which is 5,544 pages long, in its entirety, he asked, &ldquo;Why would anyone in America trust the person who negotiated the deal with Iran to negotiate a trade deal that, in the balance, will hold the economic future of many American citizens?&rdquo; He stressed President Obama&rsquo;s disastrous negotiation with Iran, after which &ldquo;the Iranians are already trampling all over us, and still chanting &lsquo;Death to America.&rsquo;&rdquo; Ultimately, Christie said, &ldquo;As a blanket matter, I wouldn't trust one thing negotiated by the team of Obama, Clinton, and Kerry. Not one thing.&rdquo; <br /><br /> Kevin Kearns, President of the United States Business and Industry Council, who also appeared on The Laura Ingraham Show today, called Ryan a &ldquo;complete free trade idealogue.&rdquo; Further, Kearns voiced concerns Ryan will &ldquo;use every political lever he has to really ram this thing through.&rdquo; Christie urged Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) to vote no on the president&rsquo;s trade deal, or to not vote at all and wait for a new president to negotiate a deal that would actually be in the interest of the American people and the interests of American workers. <br /><br /> Partial Transcript [<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjk4NQ==" target="_blank"><strong>LISTEN</strong></a>]</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">****</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham</strong>: Would you comment, if you would, on the issue of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, I&rsquo;m sure you haven&rsquo;t had time to read it. We have experts going through it, we&rsquo;ve had a number of them consult with us, and as guests on our show. 5,544 pages long, with various letters attached and appendices and appendixes, and waivers. 11 countries and the United States, waiting for China to get involved, even though they&rsquo;re not a signatory to this. Congress only gets an up or down vote, that&rsquo;s all they get on this. My fear is that they&rsquo;re going to vote on this in the lame duck session after the presidential election, because they don&rsquo;t want to have their votes accounted for by the people. But, what of this massive trade deal that has just dropped? (11:37) <br /><br /> <strong>Christie</strong>: Why would anyone in America trust the person who negotiated the deal with Iran to negotiate a trade deal that, in the balance, will hold the economic future of many American citizens? The fact is that this president can&rsquo;t negotiate a thing. And, the Iranian deal is already a disaster, the Iranians are already trampling all over us, and still chanting &lsquo;Death to America.&rsquo; My problem with TPP, because you&rsquo;re right, I have not been able to read the whole thing, and I&rsquo;m concerned about all the different exceptions and side letters that are being referred to because that always is a problem. But, I will tell you this. As a blanket matter, I wouldn't trust one thing negotiated by the team of Obama, Clinton, and Kerry. Not one thing. (12:30) <br /><br /> <strong>Ingraham</strong>: So, your advice to Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell on this would be&hellip; (13:20) <br /><br /> <strong>Christie</strong>: Vote no or don&rsquo;t vote at all. And, wait for a new president to come in to negotiate a deal that would actually be in the interest of the American people and the interests of American workers. (13:23)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Christie-Urges-Ryan-to-Vote-No-on-TPP/-443508913789215370.htmlStaff2015-11-06T18:55:00ZChristie: Let's Do One-on-One DebateStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Christie:-Lets-Do-One-on-One-Debate/-937789585870752343.html2015-11-06T18:33:00Z2015-11-06T18:33:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><span><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;"><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT2899_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">Yesterday</span>, FOX Business Network announced the candidate </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT2900_com_zimbra_url" class="Object"><a style="text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2015/11/05/fox-business-networkwsj-gop-candidate-debate-lineup-announced/" target="_blank"><span style="text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">line-ups</span></a></span><span style="color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;"> for the upcoming GOP debate. In a departure from previous debates, Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) and former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) did not qualify for the prime time stage. On <span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT2901_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span>&rsquo;s program, Gov. Christie dismissed calls for FOX to make an exception allowing him to debate alongside the other eight prime-time candidates, saying, &ldquo;I&rsquo;m not a whiner or a moaner about the rules.&rdquo; Despite his demotion, Christie remained optimistic about his candidacy, pointing to recent polls showing an increase for the governor in both New Hampshire and Iowa.</span></p>
<br />
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">In addition to the GOP debates, Ingraham suggested a series of smaller, one-on-one exchanges between the various Republican candidates. Christie enthusiastically responded, &ldquo;Anytime, anywhere.&rdquo; In fact, the New Jersey governor agreed that smaller, more substantive exchanges would allow voters to &ldquo;take the measure of our character and measure of the quality of our ideas.&rdquo; At the end of the day, Christie said, &ldquo;It&rsquo;s what we owe the American people.&rdquo;</span></p>
<div><span><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div><span><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Partial Transcript: [<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjk4NQ==" target="_blank"><strong>LISTEN</strong></a>]</span></span></div>
<br />
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; text-align: center;" dir="ltr"><span style="color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">***</span></p>
<br />
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="color: #000000; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Ingraham: </span><span style="color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">What do you say to this? Fox Business, you know they had their pre-determined rules, as all of the debate hosts have had. You didn&rsquo;t make the stage, lots of people are saying they should make an exception for you as they did with Carly Fiorina. What say you right now? (2:09)</span></p>
<br />
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="color: #000000; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Christie: </span><span style="color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">I&rsquo;m not a whiner or a moaner about the rules. The fact is, I think, they&rsquo;ve done what they decided to do, and I&rsquo;m going to show up on <span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT2902_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">Tuesday</span> night and I&rsquo;m going to debate who they put on the stage with me, whether it&rsquo;s on the main stage or on the other stage. It doesn&rsquo;t matter, because what matters is what you have to say to the American people, what the leadership is you&rsquo;re going to provide. So, I&rdquo;ll show up wherever I&rsquo;m told to show up on <span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT2903_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">Tuesday</span> night. And, I will debate and I will make an impression, because that&rsquo;s what we&rsquo;re doing now. &nbsp;(2:25)</span></p>
<br />
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="color: #000000; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Ingraham: </span><span style="color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">We think an idea that we&rsquo;re going to try to push would be to have smaller one-on-one exchanges between candidates who have differing visions. So, a debate between, let&rsquo;s say, you and Jeb Bush, or you and Marco Rubio, or even you and Trump. I think those types of exchanges, maybe with no moderator at all, just a series of topics. Would you be willing to do those types of exchanges? (13:45)</span></p>
<br />
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="color: #000000; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Christie: </span><span style="color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Anytime, anywhere. You want to put me one on one with Marco Rubio, one on one with Jeb Bush, one on one with Ted Cruz, I think that&rsquo;s what this country needs to hear. You need to hear from us to take the measure of our character and the measure of the quality of our ideas. I would not hesitate to debate anyone, any place. I&rsquo;ve been through it in New Jersey and I&rsquo;m more than happy to do it at any time in this context, running for president. It&rsquo;s what we owe the American people. (14:16)</span></p>
<div><span style="color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;"><br /></span></div>
</span></span> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Christie:-Lets-Do-One-on-One-Debate/-937789585870752343.htmlStaff2015-11-06T18:33:00ZNoonan: No Republican Constituency for JebStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Noonan:-No-Republican-Constituency-for-Jeb/-340557897345037570.html2015-11-05T18:15:00Z2015-11-05T18:15:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on The Laura Ingraham Show, Peggy Noonan, columnist for the Wall Street Journal, addressed Jeb Bush&rsquo;s sinking campaign. In her recent WSJ piece, The Not Ready for Prime Time Jeb Bush, Noonan noted Jeb, &ldquo;never had an obvious broad base within the party.&rdquo; She elaborated on this observation, reflecting on her interactions with Jeb Bush supporters in New York. Prior to Jeb&rsquo;s official White House bid, Noonan said she was constantly approached by individuals enthusiastically asking, &lsquo;Is Jeb getting in? Can Jeb do it? Will Jeb get the nomination?&rsquo; However, she quickly realized these enthusiastic individuals were all Democrats seeking a more moderate alternative to Hillary Clinton. Noonan contrasted the excitement of these New York Democrats with constituents in New Jersey and Ohio where, &ldquo;there was no Jeb constituency.&rdquo; <br /><br /> Noonan also shared about one particular experience about a year ago; seated with a group of Jeb supporters, Noonan claims she was excited to finally uncover Jeb&rsquo;s constituency. However, as her dinnermates revealed their professions, Noonan discovered they were all former ambassadors appointed by Bush 41 and 43. This further proved her belief that Jeb entered the presidential race with limited support, primarily catering to the &ldquo;grouchy, former ambassador who wants back in the game, base.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcripts [<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp;jsessionid=179C74114B8E05127717D77728475343?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjk2Nw==" target="_blank"><strong>LISTEN</strong></a>]</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">***</p>
<p><strong>Noonan</strong>: Part of me thinks people, they have high regard for the Bushes, but they don&rsquo;t really want to go back to the psycho-drama. I was extremely struck a year ago, I live in Manhattan, and I would go to gatherings - political gatherings, birthday parties - and sometimes people would, very consistently, come up to me, they&rsquo;d cross the room to talk to me, and they&rsquo;d say, with real concern, is Jeb getting in? Can Jeb do it? Will Jeb get the nomination? With real enthusiasm. And, we&rsquo;d talk about it. But, when they&rsquo;d walk away, I&rsquo;d realize, they&rsquo;re Democrats. It was always Democrats walking up to me and saying, &lsquo;Don&rsquo;t you think Jeb can do it?&rsquo; because they thought, especially New York Democrats who&rsquo;ve seen Mrs. Clinton up close, they wanted an alternative to Mrs. Clinton and they perceive Jeb to be a moderate Republican, experienced, not crazy, stable family kind of person. But, I would look at that, at the birthday party, and I would go out into Jersey or Ohio to some conservative Republican meeting and I would talk to people and there was no Jeb constituency. <br /><br /> <strong>Noonan</strong>: I had a speech in Palm Beach about a year ago, maybe 8 months ago, and, before the speech, I sat at lunch with a bunch of people and they were all pro-Jeb. Just so Jeb, Jeb, Jeb. And, I thought, well, this is interesting, finally, I found his constituency. And, I asked them all what they did for a living - and, they were all former ambassadors appointed by 41 and 43. That&rsquo;s some base! The grouchy, former ambassador who wants back in the game, base. So, I just, I think, poor Jeb, he is a poor candidate. He was a good governor, but he is a poor, national candidate. And, you never know if you can go national when you&rsquo;ve been a good governor. Scott Walker couldn&rsquo;t go national, I believe Jeb couldn&rsquo;t go national. (7:23)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Noonan:-No-Republican-Constituency-for-Jeb/-340557897345037570.htmlStaff2015-11-05T18:15:00ZChristie: "Hard to Keep Up with How Many Times Marco Changes his Positions"Staffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Christie:-Hard-to-Keep-Up-with-How-Many-Times-Marco-Changes-his-Positions/-503854599474600741.html2015-11-03T20:30:00Z2015-11-03T20:30:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>CHRISTIE: "I don&rsquo;t know why anyone would want to have someone who is not going to enforce the law as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States." <br /><br /> Today on The Laura Ingraham Show, Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) slammed his opponent, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), on his support for President Obama's 2012 executive amnesty. Ingraham played Christie an English-language exchange between Marco Rubio and Jorge Ramos, which Fusion highlighted and posted to its youtube page several days ago. In the English-language exchange (not Spanish), Rubio made clear beyond any reasonable doubt that he holds the exact same position as Obama on DACA: that Rubio would force DACA onto the unwilling American populace and leave it place until such time as the Congress submits and passes a legislative amnesty. Because DACA-- which forces USCIS officers to print up all kinds of benefits for illegals-- is unconstitutional, continuing it for even one second of one day is a violation of the Presidential oath of office, and a direct frontal attack on the positions of Rep. Steve King and Sen. Chuck Grassley-- two central players in Iowa. <br /><br /> Rubio has repeatedly expressed his support for the DREAM Act and his belief that borders should not apply to minors (i.e. open borders). Additionally, Rubio wants more Muslim refugees, 3 times as many H-1Bs, and 33 million new green cards in a decade-- views shared by something approximating zero percent of GOP voters. Rubio also pushed for TPP, which allows more foreign labor and foreign goods to degrade living standards in America. <br /><br /> See transcript below [<strong><a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjk0Nw==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a></strong>].</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">***</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham</strong>: I want to play a sound bite for you, since Marco Rubio everyone thinks is the next big Establishment thing, Marco Rubio was on with your dear friend Jorge Ramos from Univision... and Jorge asked him about the President&rsquo;s executive actions on immigration and what he would do. (8:15) <br /><br /> <strong>RAMOS</strong>: Ramos: &ldquo;Would a President Rubio revoke Deferred Action and executive action by President Barack Obama?&rdquo; <br /><br /> <strong>RUBIO</strong>: "We have two executive actions. The first was DACA which applies to young people that arrived in this country very young age before they were adults and I don&rsquo;t think we can immediately revoke that. I think it will have to end at some point, and I hope it will end because of some reform to the immigration laws. It cannot be the permanent policy of the United States but I&rsquo;m not calling for it to be revoked tomorrow or this week or right away." <br /><br /> <strong>Christie</strong>: It&rsquo;s hard to keep up with how many times Marco changes his positions on these things, to tell you the truth. I&rsquo;ve said very clearly that the President&rsquo;s conduct here is illegal. And, it seems to me, I&rsquo;ve been talking about lawlessness on the campaign trail a lot and it&rsquo;s getting a lot of reaction; you can&rsquo;t act in a lawless manner as the President of the United States and expect that people are going to follow you. And, not have a sense of the justice that applies to everyone in this country. If the President&rsquo;s executive orders are illegal, which I believe they are, then they need to be revoked the first day you get into office. (9:22) <br /><br /> <strong>Ingraham</strong>: Is Marco Rubio&rsquo;s comment that you can&rsquo;t immediately move against these executive actions, is this a dis-qualifier? (11:30) <br /><br /> <strong>Christie</strong>: I don&rsquo;t know why anyone would want to have someone who is not going to enforce the law as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. You have to enforce the law, and if you believe, as I do, now maybe Marco doesn&rsquo;t believe that the executive order is illegal, and if he doesn&rsquo;t he should say that. And, he&rsquo;s welcome to that opinion, obviously there&rsquo;s lots of Democrats who would agree with that. But, he needs to say that. (11:35)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Christie:-Hard-to-Keep-Up-with-How-Many-Times-Marco-Changes-his-Positions/-503854599474600741.htmlStaff2015-11-03T20:30:00ZFisher: Trump's Message of Hope & Change Crosses Party LinesStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Fisher:-Trumps-Message-of-Hope--Change-Crosses-Party-Lines/154381263041111184.html2015-11-02T18:45:00Z2015-11-02T18:45:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on The Laura Ingraham Show, Marc Fisher, senior editor for the Washington Post, discussed the appeal of Donald Trump, who he claims is playing the role of a third party candidate. According to Fisher, Trump represents a &ldquo;sense of possibility, of hope and change, and all that stuff, because they see him as someone who can get things done.&rdquo; After speaking with many Trump supporters, Fisher concluded the American people are attracted to Trump because they are looking for someone &ldquo;pragmatic and practical, rather than someone who&rsquo;s going to stick to a particular ideology.&rdquo; <br /><br /> Fisher also addressed the out-of-touch Establishment, particularly Jeb Bush. Despite Jeb&rsquo;s low poll numbers, Fisher does not believe he will get out of the race until the very end. He says that, although &ldquo;it&rsquo;s pretty clear, if you go out and talk to people, that the antagonism towards Jeb Bush and the idea of another generation of a dynasty is really palpable,&rdquo; the Bushes seem to be oblivious and still holding onto hopes that Trump and Carson will fall. However, the Bushes are not the only ones Fisher claims are disconnected from the American people. He also accused the pundit class, and many journalists, of being too focused on the parties and the insider politicians, meaning &ldquo;they&rsquo;re not looking enough at the pain that you see once you get outside the big cities and out into the country and see the devastated towns and empty storefronts and see the people who have lost their opportunities.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript [<strong><a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjk0NQ==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a></strong>]</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">***</p>
<p><strong>Fisher</strong>: I was trying to find out why they were so attracted to this idea of Make America Great Again. And, what that really meant to people. And, it means a lot of different things and Trump is obviously a big figure and a big personality, he&rsquo;s somebody who people are attracted to for a lot of different reasons. But, this Make America Great thing is what&rsquo;s really attracting them. And, what it reveals is this deep sense of frustration that people have with both parties - they feel like they&rsquo;ve been sold down the river by both parties over an extended period of decades and they are looking to send a message. And, if you think of Trump as kind of a third party candidate, in a way, that's the traditional role that third party candidates play. It&rsquo;s when people say, yeah, this guy isn&rsquo;t the usual kind of person we want to be president, but we want to send a message. And, the message is, you guys need to get something done. And it&rsquo;s also Americans asserting their skepticism about any ideology, whether it&rsquo;s liberal or conservative, whatever it is. They want someone who&rsquo;s going to be pragmatic and practical, rather than someone who&rsquo;s going to stick to a particular ideology. (1:39) <br /><br /> <strong>Fisher</strong>: I think the pundit class, and a lot of my colleagues in journalism, are way too focused on what the parties say, what the parties do, and what the insider politicians say and do. They&rsquo;re not looking enough at the pain that you see once you get outside the big cities and out into the country and see the devastated towns and empty storefronts and see the people who have lost their opportunities, the sense of being surpass their parents standard of living, such a core American concept, and a lot of people say that&rsquo;s now impossible. (5:00) <br /><br /> <strong>Ingraham</strong>: We as citizens are loyal to the country, and politicians, when they&rsquo;re at the best, it&rsquo;s a loyalty to something greater. Kennedy had it, Reagan had it, FDR had it. I think Obama, even with his hope and change posters, for him it was always, when he would campaign, he didn&rsquo;t speak to the cult of &lsquo;him,&rsquo; but people took it that way. So, for them it was a cult of personality, but he was like, look, we&rsquo;re going to transform America. (5:55) <br /><br /> <strong>Fisher</strong>: I&rsquo;m glad you mentioned Obama and Kennedy in that way, because the Trump thing is actually much more reminiscent of Kennedy, Obama, maybe even Eisenhower, than it is of Reagan. What I mean by that is that what Trump means to people is this sense of possibility, of hope and change, and all that stuff, because they see him as someone who can get things done. And, they see him as non-ideological. So, Reagan was saying we need to give this philosophy of conservatism a chance here because the country is in trouble, that&rsquo;s not what Donald Trump is saying. He&rsquo;s saying, just put me in there and I&rsquo;ll make things happen and I don&rsquo;t really care about ideology. And, that&rsquo;s what people thought they saw in that Obama 2008 campaign about hope and change. They weren&rsquo;t focusing on the content of what he was talking about, which is similar to when people elected Eisenhower, who had no ideology. He was just a general and a college president, had no political background, and that was part of his appeal. (6:52) <br /><br /> <strong>Ingraham</strong>: Do you see any sense that Jeb Bush, in your reporting, would ever drop out until it was statistically impossible to win? (8:24) <br /><br /> <strong>Fisher</strong>: There&rsquo;s really no reason for him to drop out because, even if he stays down there at 5% or somewhere around there, he still has more than $100 million and the way Citizens United has changed the calculus of campaigns in this country, these guys can now get enough money that they can stay in through at least the first half of the primaries no problem. And, the Bushes have this sense of inevitability, they think Trump and Carson are going to fall away, and they think that people will come to their sense and turn to the Bushes. And, even though it&rsquo;s pretty clear, if you go out and talk to people, that the antagonism towards Jeb Bush and the idea of another generation of a dynasty is really palpable. It&rsquo;s pervasive. But, the Bushes don&rsquo;t see that. (8:31)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Fisher:-Trumps-Message-of-Hope--Change-Crosses-Party-Lines/154381263041111184.htmlStaff2015-11-02T18:45:00ZStick a Fork in Jeb...He's DoneStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Stick-a-Fork-in-Jeb...Hes-Done/-514654568013895880.html2015-10-29T16:04:00Z2015-10-29T16:04:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><span id="docs-internal-guid-82a41d9a-b450-cef1-fad3-ad3bb5d65bed">
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Following budget cuts, former Florida governor Jeb Bush needed to perform strongly in last night&rsquo;s GOP debate to save his struggling campaign. However, <span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT730_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">this morning</span>&rsquo;s headlines - </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT731_com_zimbra_url" class="Object"><a style="text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/jeb-bushs-campaign-life-support-after-rough-debate-n453656" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Jeb Bush&rsquo;s Campaign on Life Support</span></a></span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">, </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT732_com_zimbra_url" class="Object"><a style="text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/bush-walks-into-rubios-trap-215337" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Bush Walks Into Rubio&rsquo;s Trap</span></a></span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">, </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT733_com_zimbra_url" class="Object"><a style="text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/29/us/politics/polite-interruption-reveals-how-friendships-fray-on-the-campaign-trail.html?hp&amp;action=click&amp;pgtype=Homepage&amp;module=photo-spot-region&amp;region=top-news&amp;WT.nav=top-news&amp;_r=0" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Rubio Bests Bush</span></a></span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">, and </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT734_com_zimbra_url" class="Object"><a style="text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/insiders-bush-bombed-215324" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Bush Bombed </span></a></span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">- indicate Jeb&rsquo;s campaign may be on it&rsquo;s last leg. According to NBC, Bush&rsquo;s performance &ldquo;</span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #232323; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">was the equivalent of a teenager who, after telling the whole school that he was going to fight a classmate at lunchtime, ended up being the one taking the licking</span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">.&rdquo; </span></p>
<br />
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Throughout the debate, Jeb demonstrated his campaign is wildly out of touch with the American people. In fact, </span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">nearly </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT735_com_zimbra_url" class="Object"><a style="text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/insiders-bush-bombed-215324#ixzz3pyF2F9s7" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">60 percent</span></a></span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> of respondents said Bush lost the CNBC debate</span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">, making him the evening&rsquo;s &ldquo;biggest loser.&rdquo; Bush&rsquo;s performance was so poor, even his donors were furious, especially about Jeb&rsquo;s decision to attack opponent Sen. Rubio. One anonymous donor said, &nbsp;</span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">&ldquo;Going after Rubio that way was just a mistake. No one cares about missed votes in the Senate. Washington cares about that. The media cares about that. And losing candidates care about that. Jeb sounded like he was losing.&rdquo;</span></p>
<br />
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Jeb&rsquo;s support among the American people is falling, his donors are livid, and there&rsquo;s not a positive headline in sight. The debate did nothing to stop the downward spiral of Jeb&rsquo;s campaign, but instead showed it&rsquo;s time to stick a fork in Jeb&rsquo;s campaign, it&rsquo;s done.</span></p>
</span> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Stick-a-Fork-in-Jeb...Hes-Done/-514654568013895880.htmlStaff2015-10-29T16:04:00ZAguilar: Deportation is Excessive & Off the TableStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Aguilar:-Deportation-is-Excessive--Off-the-Table/-809296491311320944.html2015-10-28T17:30:00Z2015-10-28T17:30:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, Alfonso Aguilar, executive director of the American Principles Project&rsquo;s Latino Partnership, to discuss yesterday&rsquo;s meeting of Hispanics in Colorado. The group of Hispanics who gathered issued a warning to the Republican Party, "If Trump is the GOP nominee he will not have our support. We will not work to elect him.&rdquo; Aguilar, who claims to be a staunch believer in the rule of law, told Ingraham he did not believe that those living in the country illegally, under false identification, should be deported. In fact, he said he believes deportation should be off the table as it is an &ldquo;excessive&rdquo; penalty for the crime. <br /><br /> One caller introduced himself saying, &ldquo;I&rsquo;m a Hispanic, but I&rsquo;m also an American.&rdquo; He accused Aguilar of sounding &ldquo;very much like a liberal&rdquo; and was outraged that the rights of illegals is prioritized over the rights of American citizens. The caller voiced his support for Trump and denied claims by the Hispanic community that the real estate mogul is a racist saying, &ldquo;Shame on us as Americans if we ever support that thought that just for following the laws of this country, all of a sudden we&rsquo;re racist.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript [<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjkwNw==" target="_blank"><strong>LISTEN</strong></a>]</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">***</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham</strong>: Let&rsquo;s go through the conservative principles, many of them you and I agree on. I would imagine that you, Alfonso, with all the work you&rsquo;ve done, you believe the rule of law is a fundamental conservative principle and the enforcement of the rule of law correct? (0:01) <br /><br /> <strong>Aguilar</strong>: Of course. Of course. (0:14 ) <br /><br /> <strong>Ingraham</strong>: If people are in this country illegally, those people are here, using false identification, have lied to federal officials or state officials, do you believe those individuals should be deported from the United States of America? (0:15 ) <br /><br /> <strong>Aguilar</strong>: No. And here&rsquo;s why. First of all, logistically. (0:28) <br /><br /> <strong>Ingraham</strong>: Don&rsquo;t worry about logistics right now. We&rsquo;re just talking about you say you believe in rule of law, and I take you at your word, but the rule of law means that the rule of law is enforced. Correct? (0:34) <br /><br /> <strong>Aguilar</strong>: I agree. But, but, but, following the argument of the rule of law, the penalty has to be proportional to the crime or infraction. To propose that the only way to deal with them is to return them to their home country, that&rsquo;s the only penalty, I think that&rsquo;s certainly excessive. I don&rsquo;t&hellip; (0:44) <br /><br /> <strong>Ingraham</strong>: So, you want to change the law. Okay, I hear that. You want to change what the law is, and the rule of law today is, if you&rsquo;re in the country illegally&hellip; (1:05) <br /><br /> <strong>Aguilar</strong>: No&hellip; (1:17 ) <br /><br /> <strong>Ingraham</strong>: We can consult the federal law, immigration law, but as I understand, you are subject to deportation as a resident alien who is in violation of current immigration law. (1:18) <br /><br /> <strong>Aguilar</strong>: That is correct. <br /><br /> <strong>Ingraham</strong>: [They] are subject to deportation, but you, who say you&rsquo;re for the rule of law believe, no, deportation is off the table. Correct? (1:32) <br /><br /> <strong>Aguilar</strong>: That is correct. (1:39 ) <br /><br /> <strong>Caller</strong>: I think, really, Alfonso sounded very much like a liberal advocating for the rights of people that have broken the law. I&rsquo;m a Hispanic, but I&rsquo;m also an American. And, I&rsquo;m law-abiding. And, it&rsquo;s troublesome to see all these people that come to this country and they&rsquo;re always advocating for the rights of people from other countries. To me, that&rsquo;s not being a true American. A lot of these people that come to America, they don&rsquo;t want to come here to become Americans, they want to come here to benefit from what our country provides us. But, they want to advocate for the rights and that&rsquo;s un-American. To me, that&rsquo;s pretty much being a traitor to the country, because rights for illegal immigrants, rights matter, but what about rights for the American people? Ultimately, it becomes racist to advocate for the rights of us, common American people. I&rsquo;m a huge Trump supporter. He&rsquo;s called a racist just because he wants to apply the law? That&rsquo;s ridiculous. Shame on us as Americans if we ever support that thought that just for following the laws of this country, all of a sudden we&rsquo;re racist. We need to stand up. And, that&rsquo;s why I think Trump has so much support. (1:44)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Aguilar:-Deportation-is-Excessive--Off-the-Table/-809296491311320944.htmlStaff2015-10-28T17:30:00ZCosta: Establishment Doesn't 'Get' ImmigrationStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Costa:-Establishment-Doesnt-Get-Immigration/984041629343995771.html2015-10-27T16:57:00Z2015-10-27T16:57:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><span>
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT790_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">Today</span> on the Laura Ingraham Show, Bob Costa, political reporter for the Washington Post, addressed the divide between the grassroots and the Republican Establishment. According to Costa, they &ldquo;don&rsquo;t get or grasp the power of immigration as an issue.&rdquo; He suggested the Party is still treating immigration as a social, side issue, refusing to view it as a critical concern of the American people. Costa contrasted this mindset with Donald Trump, who has placed immigration at the forefront of his campaign, focusing on illegal immigration at all of his events. So, when members of the Establishment, like John Snunu, say they are baffled by Trump&rsquo;s rise, Costa says it is because they have not kept up with the electorate, who have moved on to these bigger issues.</span></p>
<br />
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Costa also addressed the rise of Ben Carson, who has now surpassed Trump in multiple Iowa polls and one national poll. According to the Post reporter, Carson&rsquo;s support in Iowa stems from the Evangelical community, which has &ldquo;a different temperament&rdquo; than states like New Hampshire. He then pointed to Trump&rsquo;s strong lead in NH, again attributing the billionaires lead to his strong stance on immigration, which &ldquo;remains the backbone of his support with the grassroots.&rdquo;</span></p>
<br />
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Meanwhile in Colorado, two dozen of the nation&rsquo;s top Hispanic conservative activists joined <span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT791_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span> to issue a warning to the Republican Party. According to Alfonso Aguilar, </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #111111; background-color: transparent; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">head of the American Principles Project's Latino Partnership, the meeting was set to focus on &nbsp;the comments and proposals of Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) among others. Mario Lopez, </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #111111; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">President of the Hispanic Leadership Fund, joined</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #111111; font-style: italic; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #111111; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Ingraham <span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT792_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">this morning</span> prior to attending the conference. Despite his resentment towards Donald Trump, Lopez ceded that illegal immigrants living in the United States using false identification should be deported. He also stressed the importance of reforming the legal immigration system, which &ldquo;is a huge contributor to the mess we&rsquo;re in, because it incentivizes bad behavior.&rdquo;</span></p>
</span>
<p><br /><br /> Partial Transcript [<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjkwMw==" target="_blank"><strong>LISTEN</strong></a>]</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">***</p>
<span>
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Ingraham: </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I was reading comments by John Sununu, longtime Bush White House aide, H.W, confidante of the Bushes, former governor of New Hampshire, was quoted in the he New York Times saying he&rsquo;s just flummoxed by this campaign. He just doesn&rsquo;t understand it, he can&rsquo;t explain it. And, therein lies the rub, does it not, that there is a bubble atmosphere among the dynastic supporters, the supporters of the Bush dynasty, and the Bushes themselves, and the way most people live. The average Americans, the way that 65% say America is going the wrong direction, they&rsquo;re really frustrated with the Republican Party, trade, of course immigration, and the Bush&rsquo;s are on the exact opposite side on those two issues. So they don&rsquo;t understand it? It&rsquo;s been fairly obvious. (10:23)</span></p>
<br />
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Costa: </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">At the heart of things that the Republican Party doesn&rsquo;t understand, when I meet with them on Capitol Hill, when I&rsquo;m having a drink with them on the campaign trail, or covering their event, is they don&rsquo;t get or grasp the power of immigration as an issue. They treat it almost as a social issue that&rsquo;s something that&rsquo;s part of the discussion. But, whenever I&rsquo;m at Trump&rsquo;s events in Mobile, Alabama or in Iowa, immigration is the issue. That&rsquo;s the divide, that's what Sununu was saying he doesn&rsquo;t get the electorate, because the electorate has moved on to many other issues, mainly immigration, and are at a totally different position than a Party Establishment. (11:49)</span></p>
<br />
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Ingraham: </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I keep saying if someone like a Rubio had come forward and said, you know something, I now see what has happened on this issue, and I&rsquo;m going to take a step towards the base on this. And, really, actually look like you&rsquo;re going to compromise with the base. That would be smart of Rubio to do. (13:19)</span></p>
<br />
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Costa: </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Rubio is going to have a challenge now because, let&rsquo;s say Bush falls or Bush continues to stumble, there will be an opening for Rubio. The question is, does the Republican base, do conservatives, acknowledge that yes, he led the fight for comprehensive immigration reform, but his efforts ever since then, since backing away, have been enough to allow him to not only be the Establishment favorite, but to have crossover appeal and crossover support. Rubio people just aren&rsquo;t sure how that&rsquo;s going to all play out. (13:37)</span></p>
<br />
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Ingraham: </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I think what he could&rsquo;ve done, which again, it&rsquo;s too late for this. But, he could have offered border enforcement initiatives and done things post-Gang of 8 that indicated he was serious, he wasn&rsquo;t just going to talk the talk about changing, he was going to do something different. But, he just didn&rsquo;t do that. I don&rsquo;t know if it&rsquo;s possible. It&rsquo;s a heavy lift. I still think on this issue no one in the top tier touches [Trump]. (14:06)</span></p>
<br />
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Costa: </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">That&rsquo;s true. That&rsquo;s why, when you look at Carson eclipsing Trump in Iowa and narrowing in some of these polls, it&rsquo;s more because of the Evangelical support for Carson and the Iowa temperament. Anyone who has been to Iowa realizes they have a different temperament, a different tone, than in New Hampshire. New Hampshire is a little more rough and tumble, enjoying the rough and tumble. Iowa&rsquo;s not. So, New Hampshire also is a state that has embraced candidates critical of comprehensive immigration reform in the past; that's why I think right now Trump is very strong in New Hampshire, because of what he said on immigration and I think he can come back in Iowa. But, it&rsquo;s immigration that remains the backbone of his support with the grassroots. (15:15)</span></p>
</span>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Costa:-Establishment-Doesnt-Get-Immigration/984041629343995771.htmlStaff2015-10-27T16:57:00ZGOP Establishment Whines About WorkingStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/GOP-Establishment-Whines-About-Working/321820760346556171.html2015-10-26T16:57:00Z2015-10-26T16:57:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>This weekend, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2015/10/25/28cfaff0-6d59-11e5-9bfe-e59f5e244f92_story.html" target="_blank">admitted</a> he is &ldquo;frustrated&rdquo; with the Senate. Rubio, who has missed an unusually large number of votes, said in the last GOP debate he is missing votes because he is leaving the Senate. Last Tuesday, Rubio cast a vote, his first in 26 days. However, the Florida Senator is brushing off criticism, saying, &ldquo;I&rsquo;m not missing votes because I&rsquo;m on vacation. I&rsquo;m running for president so that the votes they take in the Senate are actually meaningful again.&rdquo; However, as one caller to the show said, &ldquo;We don&rsquo;t all like work everyday, but we still have to go.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Meanwhile in the House, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) received criticism last week for refusing to sacrifice family time and weekends for the Speaker&rsquo;s job. When asked if he was surprised by the response to his demand, Ryan <a style="text-decoration: none;" href="http://thehill.com/homenews/house/257627-ryan-pushes-back-at-conservative-criticism" target="_blank">said</a>, &ldquo;Hey look, I&rsquo;m here four days a week as it is. I&rsquo;m not going to spend the other three days a week running around America.&rdquo; Again, veterans and average working Americans called into the show, all of whom wished they could spend more time with their families.</p>
<p>No wonder Donald Trump, whose son <a target="_blank">said</a>, &ldquo;I've literally never seen the man take a vacation,&rdquo; is resonating with the American people.</p>
<p>Floridians to Marco: Start Working!&nbsp;<a href="http://bit.ly/1Gu3GTa" target="_blank">http://bit.ly/1Gu3GTa</a></p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/GOP-Establishment-Whines-About-Working/321820760346556171.htmlStaff2015-10-26T16:57:00ZSessions: TPP is a "Huge Reduction of Congress' Power"Staffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Sessions:-TPP-is-a-Huge-Reduction-of-Congress-Power/-300370900548209053.html2015-10-23T18:29:00Z2015-10-23T18:29:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) discussed the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), who is positioned to become the next Speaker of the House, claims the GOP will have a heavy influence over the trade bill. However, Sessions said he is not aware of any senator, or congressman, who has had any influence over the drafting of the text. Rather, Sessions argues, &ldquo;it is a huge reduction of Congress&rsquo; power.&rdquo; Congress is no longer able to propose amendments to the texts; instead, there will be a simple up or down vote, with no filibuster, and the bill will be on the floor for just one day. The Alabama senator, who vocally opposes the TPP, explained the TPP will weaken the ability of American business to compete effectively, cost jobs, and further reduce wages in the United States. <br /><br /> Politico recently reported that GOP leadership aides are saying that the TPP vote won&rsquo;t be delayed until after the GOP primaries, but it will be delayed until after the election, which Ingraham called &ldquo;criminal.&rdquo; Sessions noted the majority of the American people oppose the TPP, asking &ldquo;if it&rsquo;s such a good deal why do they want to keep the American people from having an influence on it?&rdquo; According to Sen. Sessions, the TPP is yet another issue area, along with immigration, in which the Congress is ignoring the American people. He argued it, &ldquo;I think we&rsquo;re about a point where the American people need to be listened to, they are right on these issues, in my view.&rdquo;</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">****</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham</strong>: Paul Ryan said in that sound bite that the GOP is going to have more influence over trade. My question to you is what influence did any member of the GOP have on the Trans -Pacific Partnership text that is still secret, that the American people haven&rsquo;t read, that is apparently more than 1,000 pages, or maybe several thousand pages long. Tell me the one senator or congressman that you know of who had any influence over the drafting of the TPP. (2:36) <br /><br /> <strong>Sessions</strong>: Well, I&rsquo;m not aware of any. This was done by the Obama administration, number one. But, what we did do by having the fast-track bill passed, we reduced the ability of Congress to even have amendments and we&rsquo;ve reduced the ability in the Senate to have 60 votes instead of a simple majority. And the bill will be filed one day, and voted on the next. It&rsquo;ll be made public before that, but it&rsquo;ll be on the floor one day, basically, with no amendments. Up or down, and no filibuster is appropriate or legal. So, it&rsquo;s a huge reduction of Congress&rsquo; power. (2:58) <br /><br /> <strong>Ingraham</strong>: So characterize Paul Ryan&rsquo;s description of TPP for us. (3:42) <br /><br /> <strong>Sessions</strong>: Well, I think that&rsquo;s incorrect, but most importantly it&rsquo;s incorrect because it&rsquo;s going to weaken the ability of American businesses to compete effectively. It&rsquo;s going to cost jobs and reduce wages and it&rsquo;s going to put us in an international commission that allows the Sultan of Brunei to have the same vote as the President of the United States. We don&rsquo;t need any new international commissions. (3:46 ) <br /><br /> <strong>Ingraham</strong>: What I&rsquo;m saying is Paul Ryan sold it based on all these things, none of those things turned out to be true. So, when everyone says well, Paul Ryan says we&rsquo;re not going to do immigration reform, none of that means much to me after I saw how he sold this fast track. I want to ask you a question. Politico recently reported that the GOP leadership aides are saying that the TPP vote won&rsquo;t be delayed until after the GOP primaries, but it will be delayed until after the election and into the lame duck session, Senator. To me that is criminal, because it&rsquo;s trying to get them off the hook on this TPP. And, I think it&rsquo;s clearly out of a desire to help Rubio and hurt Donald Trump. So, do you think Congress needs to have a TPP vote now, rather than in the lame duck session so we know where everybody stands? (4:21) <br /><br /> <strong>Sessions</strong>: Well, if it&rsquo;s such a good deal why do they want to keep the American people from having an influence on it? Why don&rsquo;t they bring it out during the election so people can vote and evaluate their representatives on how they vote? Well, they know it&rsquo;s not popular, they know it&rsquo;s not going to be well received by Republicans, or Democrats. And, so, if they want to promote their agenda as opposed to defending the agenda of the American people, that&rsquo;s what you would do. (5:06) <br /><br /> <strong>Ingraham</strong>: Which candidates does that help, to delay to the lame duck session, and which candidates does it hurt? (5:40) <br /><br /> <strong>Sessions</strong>: Well, your judgement is better than mine. I&rsquo;ll just say a number of candidates oppose the agreement and a number of them favor it. (5:43) <br /><br /> <strong>Ingraham</strong>: We need leaders, I&rsquo;m totally convinced, we need leaders who fight for, advocate for, the values of the voters who elect us. Not against them. And, the anger and the frustration out there is much deeper than personalities, as some people suggest. It&rsquo;s that our voters believe, by super majority, that immigration should be reduced not increased, whereas the Senate passed, and it almost passed in the House, a bill that would increase immigration dramatically. And, not stop illegal immigration. The same is true about trade. Overwhelmingly, the American people are dubious of these trade agreements. And, I&rsquo;ve supported them in the past, I&rsquo;ll admit it, but I have studied these things and I don&rsquo;t believe it can be shown that these are beneficial to American manufacturing and American jobs. So, I think we need to start listening to the people who elect us. And, if the leadership of the House accelerates the advocacy for more immigration and more trade agreements, than I think it does endanger the unity of our party. I&rsquo;m a conservative, they try to pretend that if you question a trade agreement you&rsquo;re not a conservative. I don&rsquo;t think that&rsquo;s true. I don&rsquo;t think it&rsquo;s wrong for an anti-conservative to say we should have a trade agreement that&rsquo;s negotiated toughly and defends American interests. How is that liberal? I think we&rsquo;re about a point where the American people need to be listened to, they are right on these issues, in my view. (6:50)</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Sessions:-TPP-is-a-Huge-Reduction-of-Congress-Power/-300370900548209053.htmlStaff2015-10-23T18:29:00ZRep. Brooks: Ryan has the "Absolute Worst Record" on Border SecurityStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Rep.-Brooks:-Ryan-has-the-Absolute-Worst-Record-on-Border-Security/-70676547199049139.html2015-10-22T17:14:00Z2015-10-22T17:14:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Last night, the supermajority of the House Freedom Caucus announced their decision to back Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) for Speaker of the House. On today&rsquo;s program, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL), member of the House Freedom Caucus, discussed his substantive concerns regarding a Speaker Ryan. According to Brooks, Ryan &ldquo;seems to have the absolute worst record on border security of any Republican in the United States House of Representatives.&rdquo; Ryan, who was an avid supporter of the Gang of 8 Bill, supposedly promised members of the House Freedom Caucus that he would not bring up immigration policy during the Obama administration. In addition, Brooks said the candidate for Speaker assured the Caucus, no immigration bill will come to the House floor unless it has the support of the majority of the majority. <br /><br /> Brooks is requiring assurances from Ryan that he will not use the Speaker&rsquo;s position to support a set of immigration policies that the vast number of Americans oppose, and that members of his own congressional district &ldquo;strongly oppose.&rdquo; As the House prepares for the official vote next week, Brooks says, &ldquo;We&rsquo;ll see if he does that.&rdquo; <br /><br /> Partial Transcript [<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjg1OQ==" target="_blank"><strong>LISTEN</strong></a>]</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">***</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham</strong>: How many representatives where threatened? (7:48) <br /><br /> <strong>Brooks</strong>: I can&rsquo;t say&hellip; (7:49) <br /><br /> <strong>Ingraham</strong>: There were threats made though, weren&rsquo;t there, Congressman? Threats of stripping committee chairmanships, other threats of bills not being brought to the floor, there were threats made. (7:52) <br /><br /> <strong>Brooks</strong>: I have no personal knowledge of that, but based on what I have seen in the past, it would not surprise me. (8:04) <br /><br /> <strong>Ingraham</strong>: The substantive concern with Ryan, not whether he&rsquo;s a nice person or whether he&rsquo;s a good guy or great father, all of that is stipulated. But, on substance. What two issues, or couple of issues, came up at the conference, regarding Ryan&rsquo;s past pronouncements, bothered people. Not his approach, but substantively, what were the concerns raised? (9:32) <br /><br /> <strong>Brooks</strong>: My biggest reservation with Paul Ryan is that he seems to have the absolute worst record on border security of any Republican in the United States House of Representatives. My staff that advises me on this, that has done a lot of research on his past record, they are adamant in that view. And, I am requiring assurances from Paul Ryan before I will vote for him in the GOP conference on the House Floor that he will not use the Speaker&rsquo;s position to support a set of immigration policies that the vast number of Americans oppose and that people in my Congressional district strongly oppose. We&rsquo;ll see if he does that. (10:03) <br /><br /> <strong>Ingraham</strong>: I saw that, and this had been widely supported, that he agreed not to bring up immigration reform, that he was an avid fan of the Gang of 8 Bill, etc. He would not bring up immigration reform, as long as Obama was president. That&rsquo;s like, to me that&rsquo;s just a meaningless promise. So what? (10:55) <br /><br /> <strong>Brooks</strong>: That is half of what he said. The other half was, okay, you&rsquo;ve got the first part right, no immigration bills while Barack Obama&rsquo;s president because it would not be a productive thing to do, would not enhance border security. The second half was, and to me this is much more important, is no immigration bill comes to the House floor unless it has the support of the majority of the majority. IE. The majority of Republicans, since we are the majority, have to agree to immigration coming to the House floor before it can receive the House floor vote. That&rsquo;s where the check would be on Paul Ryan&rsquo;s open borders, amnesty type views. (11:22)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Rep.-Brooks:-Ryan-has-the-Absolute-Worst-Record-on-Border-Security/-70676547199049139.htmlStaff2015-10-22T17:14:00ZCarlson: Ryan in a 'Win-Win' SituationStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Carlson:-Ryan-in-a-Win-Win-Situation/213642854961872788.html2015-10-21T17:14:00Z2015-10-21T17:14:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr">Today on the Laura Ingraham Show, Tucker Carlson, Editor in Chief of the Daily Caller, addressed Paul Ryan&rsquo;s demands for becoming House speaker. Ryan&rsquo;s conditions include not giving up family time, and the support of the House Freedom Caucus. According to Carlson, Ryan&rsquo;s &lsquo;my way or the highway&rsquo; approach puts the Wisconsin representative in a win-win situation where, &ldquo;Either he doesn't get the job and he can say I tried my best but the Republicans are just too crazy and they wouldn't have me and he seems like the adult in the eyes of Morning Joe, or he gets the job and he's basically told the entire caucus you have to obey everything I do ahead of time and they agree to it.&rdquo;</p>
<p>The cards are out on whether or not the Caucus will give in to Ryan&rsquo;s demands. However, throughout the program, callers from across the nation voiced their frustration in response to Ryan&rsquo;s refusal to give up family time. According to one father who rarely sees his children, if Paul Ryan wants family time, he should &ldquo;do us all a favor and go home.&rdquo;</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">****</p>
<p><strong>Carlson</strong>: My understanding is that Paul Ryan wants to run for President in 2020 and that's his goal. It's of course up to him that's fine, but no matter what happens now he kind of wins. Either he doesn't get the job and he can say I tried my best but the Republicans are just too crazy and they wouldn't have me and he seems like the adult in the eyes of Morning Joe, or he gets the job and he's basically told the entire caucus you have to obey everything I do ahead of time and they agree to it. So it's a win-win for him right? I don't see a downside. (6:20)</p>
<br /> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Carlson:-Ryan-in-a-Win-Win-Situation/213642854961872788.htmlStaff2015-10-21T17:14:00ZPeters: Trump Breaks Every Rule of Modern Politics, Scares Establishment DonorsStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Peters:-Trump-Breaks-Every-Rule-of-Modern-Politics,-Scares-Establishment-Donors/-332781429621625405.html2015-10-20T17:07:00Z2015-10-20T17:07:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><span style="font-size: 12.8px;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<p style="font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;"><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT61_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">Today</span> on </span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; font-style: italic; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">The Laura Ingraham Show</span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">, New York Times reporter, Jeremy Peters, suggested donors who had hedged their bets on Jeb Bush are getting worried, because &ldquo;money [has] had such little impact so far on who&rsquo;s up and who&rsquo;s down in this race.&rdquo; Peters said that despite Jeb&rsquo;s fundraising, Trump has earned his spot as frontrunner by &ldquo;breaking every rule of conventional, modern politics.&rdquo;</span></p>
<br style="font-size: 12.8px;" />
<p style="font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Peters also addressed George W. Bush&rsquo;s recent comments about Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), suggesting it&rsquo;s &ldquo;a preview of what&rsquo;s to come.&rdquo; In his reporting, Peters has heard that if Cruz becomes one of the last candidates standing, we will see &ldquo;the Republicans who serve in the Senate with Cruz campaign against him.&rdquo; He attributed this contempt partially to Cruz&rsquo;s lack of deference to senior senators, but also to being &ldquo;disingenuous about what he can deliver.&rdquo; However, Peters conceded it is likely that Cruz will continue to rise, and that he &ldquo;has a broader appeal than a lot of Republicans realize. It&rsquo;s not just the Evangelicals, it&rsquo;s not just the hard right, shut down the government, types,&rdquo; suggesting he could be a solid alternative to the current frontrunner, Donald Trump.</span></p>
</span></span><br />Partial Transcript: [<strong><a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjgzNw==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a></strong>]<br /><br />
<blockquote style="font-size: 12.8px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Ingraham: </span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">It was reported by Politico <span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT62_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">yesterday</span> that behind closed doors as a Denver fundraising event George W. Bush broke his silence - remember when he was going to be silent, because Obama deserves respect, but apparently Ted Cruz doesn&rsquo;t? Behind closed doors, according to numerous donors, he just trashed Ted Cruz. Most of the other candidates got off pretty easily, I mean Marco Rubio he kind of said was inexperienced, but who knows, he said. But, he went after Cruz, to the donors. What does that tell you? (<span><span>6:57</span></span>)</span></p>
<br />
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Peters: </span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">I think it&rsquo;s a preview of what&rsquo;s to come, to be honest with you, Laura. If Ted Cruz continues to rise, if he becomes one of the last men standing as a lot of smart tacticians think he will, you are going to see the Washington Establishment, the people who served in the Senate, the Republicans who serve in the Senate with Ted Cruz, campaign against him. I&rsquo;ve been told this by Republican Senators myself, they will go to the states where Ted Cruz is gaining in popularity and they will say, do not elect this guy, because they have that much contempt for him. (<span><span>7:33</span></span>)</span></p>
<br />
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Ingraham: </span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">And their contempt is based on what? The Green Eggs and Ham? The government shutdown? What? Or, that he exposes their inadequacies? (<span><span>8:10</span></span>)</span></p>
<br />
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Peters: </span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">I think the contempt goes both ways. As soon as Ted Cruz came to Washington he showed none of the deference or the respect that, I think, senators and lawmakers are accustomed to seeing from first term senators. And, you know what, that was a big part of his appeal, right? We can argue about whether or not he had nice manners, I don&rsquo;t know if that&rsquo;ll do us much good at this point. But, that&rsquo;s why people really took a liking to him. That&rsquo;s why, despite the fact that the government shutdown was an ill-conceived idea, he was able to develop a huge following on that by telling people no, look. (<span><span>8:19</span></span>)</span></p>
<br />
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Ingraham: </span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Heaven forbid politicians developed huge followings and actually energize crowds. Isn&rsquo;t that one of the points of being a politician? You actually want to get people excited, showing up at your events and thinking that you can actually change the system, so he didn&rsquo;t play nice in the Establishment sandbox so they want to pick up the sandbox and kick him out of the playground. Correct? (<span><span>8:55</span></span>)</span></p>
<br />
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Peters: </span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">I think part of it is that there&rsquo;s a belief, and I think there&rsquo;s some merit to this, that Ted Cruz has been disingenuous about what he can deliver. That he was never going to be able to defund Planned Parenthood or he was never going to be able to stop the Iran Deal, he was never going to be able to defund Obamacare. And, he was telling people, if you just fight hard, it will happen. And, of course, that wasn&rsquo;t the case.Because, the president is in the White House and he has a veto pen, and until you change the president, that&rsquo;s going to be a lot of the things, not all of them, but a lot of the things that Ted Cruz says he can accomplish. I think there is an argument to be made that he did snooker some people. (<span><span>9:13</span></span>)</span></p>
<br />
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Peters: </span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Ted Cruz has a broader appeal than a lot of Republicans realize. It&rsquo;s not just the Evangelicals, it&rsquo;s not just the hard right, shut down the government, types. There are a lot of Republicans who, I think, would look at somebody like Trump and think, he&rsquo;s not quite my taste, and then they see Ted Cruz, and if they want a fighter, they want an outsider, who&rsquo;s going to disrupt the system, I think they&rsquo;re more comfortable with somebody like Cruz. (<span><span>11:28</span></span>)</span></p>
<br />
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Ingraham: </span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">What have you discovered in your reporting about what the big donors are saying about the field currently? Especially those who had hoped that that old Bush network would be electoral magic again, harkening back to 2004 and all the appointments another Bush would get, and all the people waiting in the wings, itching to get their blue passes back in the West Wing. What are the donors saying? (<span><span>11:52</span></span>)</span></p>
<br />
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Peters: </span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">I think this has been a rude awakening, because of this point - money had such little impact so far on who&rsquo;s up and who&rsquo;s down in this race. If you look at the front runner in the Republican field, Donald Trump, he&rsquo;s hardly spent any money, he said he&rsquo;s going to use his own, although he hasn&rsquo;t quite used his own, he&rsquo;s taken a lot from donations, he&rsquo;s spent far less than anyone else, he&rsquo;s not advertising, he&rsquo;s using television, he&rsquo;s using social media, he&rsquo;s breaking every rule of conventional, modern politics. And, money has had nothing to do with it. I think a lot of these donors are scared that they are losing control of the system. If you look at how far Jeb Bush has slipped, this is a candidate who has raised more money quicker than any Republican in history, and he&rsquo;s failing. (<span><span>12:19</span></span>)</span></p>
</span></blockquote>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Peters:-Trump-Breaks-Every-Rule-of-Modern-Politics,-Scares-Establishment-Donors/-332781429621625405.htmlStaff2015-10-20T17:07:00ZKristol: Conservative Media Finally Wakes Up To JebStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Kristol:-Conservative-Media-Finally-Wakes-Up-To-Jeb/-154302133459962385.html2015-10-19T16:55:00Z2015-10-19T16:55:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><span style="font-size: 12.8px;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">On <span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT643_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span>&rsquo;s program, Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, addressed Jeb Bush&rsquo;s struggle to raise his poll numbers, calling on the Republicans to &ldquo;just calm down and articulate a conservative agenda.&rdquo; Kristol urged the Establishment candidates, particularly Jeb Bush, to appear on </span><span style="font-style: italic; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Laura Ingraham Show</span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> to answer questions regarding comments by the Bush family about the importance of their family legacy, but also to present his case on others issues, such as the speaker race, the TPP, and criminal justice reform.</span></p>
<br />
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Ingraham also mentioned a tweet by Brit Hume, an analyst for Fox News, which blamed the talk radio for &ldquo;misinforming&rdquo; the American people, which Kristol dismissed as &ldquo;kind of pathetic.&rdquo; He questioned the Establishment for seeking a scapegoat for their losses, suggesting they would actually have a good chance in 2016 if they would &ldquo;not panic every time the liberal media tells them to panic.&rdquo;</span></p>
</span></span><br />Partial Transcript: [<strong><a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjgzMw==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a></strong>]<br /><br />
<blockquote style="font-size: 12.8px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Kristol: </span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">If Bush doesn't do well in Iowa, New Hampshire then South Carolina he can say he is going...I don't really think he will fight to the finish, but I'm not sure we really disagree that much. I mean you can certainly urge him to get out or...I would have him on the show and urge him...ask him about those comments though. Those are pretty astonishing comments. I hadn't seen those. Again they are reported, they're not direct quotes, but I agree that's a kind of a crazy way to think about a campaign and he should repudiate that. (<span><span>13:41</span></span>)</span></p>
<br />
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Ingraham: </span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Here&rsquo;s the problem is that we have a lot of Republicans from John Boehner to Paul Ryan to Jeb Bush who won&rsquo;t come on the show. They&rsquo;re all invited. I will give them an hour. An hour and I will ask maybe ten questions, and I&rsquo;ll just let them talk. For an hour. They can have one hour to talk to the whole nation on a variety of issues. But, my point, if you can&rsquo;t come on this show and make your point - why is Paul Ryan the best guy to be speaker? Why is it that we should do this criminal justice reform thing? Why was this Trans-Pacific Partnership really a time for Republicans to have all this input in the negotiating principles? I&rsquo;ll give them all hours to make those points, but Bill, the crickets are chirping. On a lot of these issues, they won&rsquo;t. (<span><span>14:03</span></span>)</span></p>
<br />
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Kristol: </span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Tell them to give me a call. I'll tell them it's not so terrible coming on the show. Even when you disagree as we have occasionally, you can live to fight another day. Even if you lose the argument it's not the end of the world. These guys are exceedingly sensitive and timid I would say. (<span><span>14:54</span></span>)</span></p>
<br />
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Ingraham:</span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Bret Hume, over the weekend, had some tweet out where he said, &ldquo;I suspect it&rsquo;s the misinformation caused by talk radio.&rdquo; I guess what was he talking about, Trump? I don&rsquo;t know, but I thought, wait, is this the go to argument if the Establishment loses another election? It&rsquo;s talk radio&rsquo;s fault? I mean, at that point, you don&rsquo;t even know what to say. (<span><span>15:10</span></span>)</span></p>
<br />
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Kristol: </span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">&nbsp;I agree, that&rsquo;s kind of pathetic. Well, anyway. The Establishment is looking for, I don&rsquo;t know why they&rsquo;re looking for scapegoats. Republicans have a pretty good chance actually in 2016 if they would just calm down and articulate a conservative agenda, and not panic every time the liberal media tells them to panic.</span><span style="font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">(<span><span>15:37</span></span>)</span></p>
</span></blockquote>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Kristol:-Conservative-Media-Finally-Wakes-Up-To-Jeb/-154302133459962385.htmlStaff2015-10-19T16:55:00ZGingrich: Trump Could Win PresidencyStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Gingrich:-Trump-Could-Win-Presidency/-884702936126673068.html2015-10-16T16:57:00Z2015-10-16T16:57:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;"><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT696_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">Today</span> on </span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; font-style: italic; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">The Laura Ingraham Show</span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich revealed he believes Trump could be &ldquo;very formidable in terms of becoming the nominee and winning the presidency.&rdquo; Ingraham suggested the Establishment is now in &ldquo;Plan B mode,&rdquo; pushing Florida Sen. Marco Rubio down Republicans&rsquo; throats. Gingrich, however, said despite Establishment support, all of the traditional candidates are going to have a very hard time breaking through the public&rsquo;s desire to have somebody &ldquo;dramatically new and dramatically different.&rdquo; He continued, suggesting an Establishment candidate may have been able to become competitive in the race if Trump were the only outsider; however, Gingrich cited the latest polls, which show Trump, Carson, Fiorina, and Cruz, the four outsiders, claiming 62% of the vote. According to Gingrich, Trump is in &ldquo;pretty good shape,&rdquo; and could ultimately win the presidency if he is able to continue evolving.</span></p>
Partial Transcript: [<strong><a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjgyMw==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a></strong>]<br /><br />
<div>
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; padding-left: 30px;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Ingraham: </span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">To me, it&rsquo;s kind of obvious what&rsquo;s happening out there on the campaign trail, and, as former Speaker of the House, I have to get your insights on this. Jeb Bush is down in single digits, he&rsquo;s down by six fold under Trump in Nevada, he&rsquo;s down by five fold, four fold, in South Carolina. He&rsquo;s in fourth place in his home state of Florida, despite having raised $130 million dollars. And, it looks like the Establishment is now in Plan B mode, which means Marco Rubio, who&rsquo;s a one term senator and, a nice guy, an interesting personality, but Reagan and Lincoln comparisons <span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT697_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span>. What is your reaction to that? (<span><span>5:00</span></span>)</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; padding-left: 30px;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;"><br /></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; padding-left: 30px;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Gingrich: </span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Well, I think first of all, if it was only Donald Trump, you could understand the Establishment holding its breath and saying, maybe he&rsquo;ll implode at some point. But, right after Trump comes Ben Carson. And, if you take Carson and Fiorina and Cruz and Trump who are the four outsiders, they&rsquo;re currently 62% of the vote. Now, somebody in the traditional Establishment and this, by the way, also explains the turmoil in the House Mike Lee pointed out in a brilliant piece in The Federalist <span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT698_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">yesterday</span>, on the revolution in the Congress. The country wants really dramatic change and when you show up and you say, I&rsquo;m acceptable to the Establishment, they check you off and say, not you. And, I think people don&rsquo;t realize how deep this is and how profound this is. And, you&rsquo;re seeing a little bit of the same thing on the Left with Bernie Sanders where there are lots and lots of people saying, no, they&rsquo;re not going to be coerced into being for Hillary. (<span><span>5:37</span></span>)</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;"><br /></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; padding-left: 30px;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Ingraham: </span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Marco Rubio is at 7% in the new NBC poll that just came out a few minutes ago. Carson&rsquo;s at 33. &nbsp;(<span><span>6:44</span></span>)</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; padding-left: 30px;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;"><br /></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; padding-left: 30px;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Gingrich: </span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Well, look, I&rsquo;ve known Marco since before he was speaker. . . (<span><span>6:50</span></span>)</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;"><br /></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; padding-left: 30px;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Ingraham: </span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">So did I. But, that&rsquo;s besides the point. All of us knew everybody. We all know everybody, but the point is, who is actually exciting the conservative base and expanding the Republican Party. I think the everyone is my friend thing really doesn&rsquo;t get us far because we&rsquo;re all friends with everybody. They&rsquo;re all great people, they&rsquo;re all nice people. That doesn&rsquo;t mean you&rsquo;re going to be a great leader and that you have real world experience to allow you to be a great leader. (<span><span>6:51</span></span>)</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;"><br /></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; padding-left: 30px;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Gingrich: </span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Well, the point I was going to make, Laura, is that I don&rsquo;t understand how any of these guys get passed Carson and Trump because I don&rsquo;t see how they make the kind of communications, and, of course, I&rsquo;m fascinated as historian because Trump I sort of understand, Trump is a remarkably effective user of social media in the age of the Kardashians. He understands all the different devices. Carson, to me, is an even more complicated indicator because you have Trump is noisy, Carson&rsquo;s quiet. But, they&rsquo;re both dominating all the traditional candidates. And, I think that&rsquo;s an astonishing indicator of how desperately the American people want dramatic change. And, I think any of the traditional candidates are going to have a difficult time. And, the only point I was making, and I don&rsquo;t say this happily, these are people I like personally, I think all of them are going to have a very hard time breaking through the public&rsquo;s desire to have somebody dramatically new and dramatically different. And, I think right now, Trump is in pretty good shape. I think if he keeps evolving and he keeps learning and he keeps paying attention, he could be very formidable in terms of becoming the nominee and winning the presidency. (<span><span>7:14</span></span>)</span></p>
</div>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Gingrich:-Trump-Could-Win-Presidency/-884702936126673068.htmlStaff2015-10-16T16:57:00ZSowell: There's a "Quiet Repeal of the American Revolution"Staffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Sowell:-Theres-a-Quiet-Repeal-of-the-American-Revolution/929105471327562730.html2015-10-15T19:38:00Z2015-10-15T19:38:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, Dr. Thomas Sowell, Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the Hoover Institution and author of &ldquo;Wealth, Poverty, and Politics,&rdquo; weighed in on the &ldquo;devaluation of American citizenship.&rdquo; Ingraham referenced the rise of dual-immersion classes in Montgomery County, Maryland and the cultural impact of unlimited immigration into the United States; Sowell, who lived in Montgomery County for a time, suggested there is a &ldquo;quiet repeal of the American Revolution.&rdquo; He claimed the Constitution is being &ldquo;watered down&rdquo; to allow politicians to act as they please, and, further, that the concept of citizenship is no longer accompanied by a sense of obligation to the United States. Sowell pointed fingers at the American people who, as citizens, have an obligation to elect responsible leaders, rather than voting for &ldquo;silly self indulgences.&rdquo; Sowell also discussed Donald Trump&rsquo;s presidential run, suggesting Trump may be able to secure the GOP nomination if he is able to maintain high polling numbers across the country. However, Sowell voiced concerns that Trump&rsquo;s dominance in the Republican field has prevented American voters from vetting other potential candidates. Ingraham pushed back on this concern, claiming the politicians have lost credibility with the American people because &ldquo;they are more worried about making the lives of the average Syrian better than focusing on the lives of the average American.&rdquo;</p>
Partial Transcript: [<strong><a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjgwNQ==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a></strong>]
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Sowell</strong>: There is going on what might be called a quiet repeal of the American Revolution, that the Constitution and all of that is being watered down to the point where politicians can do whatever they feel like doing. And, I don&rsquo;t know where it will end. (3:40) <br /><br /> <strong>Ingraham</strong>: Doesn&rsquo;t it end up, Dr. Sowell, as an ultimate devaluation of American citizenship? Because, if being a native born American doesn&rsquo;t really mean anything more than being born in Nigeria, because if you&rsquo;re born in Nigeria and you want to come here, you can come here and you can stay, and you have all the benefits of being an American, and if it doesn't&rsquo; work here you can just go back home, because you have that dual status, de facto dual status now, so the regular native born Americans are just completely swamped by a system that either completely dismisses them of swamps them. (3:57) <br /><br /> <strong>Sowell</strong>: One of the factors of the decline and fall of the Roman empire was the cheapening of Roman citizenship. And, one time, if you were a Roman citizen that was a source of pride and, more than that, it implied obligations on your part to maintain the empire and so on. Here, it implies nothing. It&rsquo;s all one way. John F. Kennedy said, &ldquo;Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.&rdquo; That concept of citizenship has long since gone by the boards. (4:35) <br /><br /> <strong>Ingraham</strong>: Are politicians, when they were at their best it seems, and of course I always go back to Reagan, for whom I worked. Nationalism and patriotism, that undergirds every decision they make. If I do this trade deal, how is it going to affect America. If I send the military into this country, what will that mean for my people here at home. How does that affect American interests? It seems we&rsquo;ve gotten away from that, now it&rsquo;s how good of a global citizen can America be? We&rsquo;re all global citizens and the American experience is secondary to how we behave as global citizens. (5:11) <br /><br /> <strong>Sowell</strong>: That is so sad because the United States was not only exceptional it was unique. The people who founded the country were well aware this was an experiment, and like all experiments it can go wrong. And, one of the things that has made it go wrong is that we have people who don&rsquo;t have any conception of that as citizens. They have an obligation to see that we pick responsible leaders - people want to vote for people because we need a woman president. My gosh, I don&rsquo;t care, and I don&rsquo;t think most other Americans would care, if the next 6 presidents were all women if those happen to be the best qualified people for the job at the time. But, now we&rsquo;re into this, the idea that we pick someone because he&rsquo;d be the first black president. if we wake up one day with Chicago and New York in radioactive ruins, no one is going to care whether the man who set this up was the first black president. Silly self indulgences can be the end of this country. (5:54)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Sowell:-Theres-a-Quiet-Repeal-of-the-American-Revolution/929105471327562730.htmlStaff2015-10-15T19:38:00ZMark Halperin: Elites Still Don't Get The Trump/Sanders Crossover AppealStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Mark-Halperin:-Elites-Still-Dont-Get-The-Trump/Sanders-Crossover-Appeal/948810976559093716.html2015-10-14T17:06:00Z2015-10-14T17:06:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br>Today on <em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, Mark Halperin, co-managing editor for Bloomberg Politics, discussed the rise of Washington outsider, suggesting the mainstream media has missed the allure of candidates like Trump and Carson. According to Halperin, voters do not disagree with the elite reporters who accuse Trump of being boorish and lacking specifics; instead, the American people are willing to tolerate his personality to avoid electing a career politician. Voters facing stagnant incomes and high college costs, among other issues, want change and are drawn to candidates with no connection to politics as usual, regardless of temperament.<br /><br />Pointing to the numerous statistics revealing dissatisfaction with Washington, Ingraham questioned how reporters could miss the angst among American voters. Bringing out his &ldquo;inner Kevin Phillips or Pat Buchanan,&rdquo; Halperin attributed this disconnect to elite reporters from, for example the New York Times, don&rsquo;t spend enough time speaking with regular people, but only consider the perspective of the most wealthy and elite people they hang out with.<br /><br />Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjc5Mw==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong><br /><br />
<blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><strong>Ingraham:</strong> You were talking about what many in the Washington, New York media, what do they miss about the angst of the American voters. You were, I think, talking at the time about Trump and Carson and how they were resonating, I think it was on Morning Joe. Tell me a little bit more about that, given all the predictions about a Trump implosion and that Carson couldn&rsquo;t stand up to the heat and that his comments were so off base he would begin to fade. Expand a little bit more on that. (9:47)<br /><br /><strong>Halperin: </strong>Well, there&rsquo;s a supply side and a demand side. On the supply side, both of those guys have a connection to a lot of the American people that, I think, elites just miss. They miss why they like them, in terms of again, the supply side, what they like about Trump&rsquo;s personality, what they like about Carson&rsquo;s. Particularly in the case of Carson, I think not nearly examined enough is the time he spent with people winning them over. But, on the demand side, in term of the mood of the electorate, if you said to a New York Times elite reporter or editorial reporter, what&rsquo;s wrong with Trump, what don&rsquo;t you like about him? They&rsquo;d say he&rsquo;s boorish, he has no specifics. I &nbsp;meet Trump supporters all the time in Iowa and New Hampshire who say the same thing and certainly wouldn&rsquo;t deny that list. But, from their point of view, the country is broken, Washington is broken and they say, you know what, if the guy is boorish or the guy&rsquo;s loud of if the guy&rsquo;s politically incorrect, either I like that or I can deal with that, I can accept those warts because I know that electing a career politician is not going to change a thing. And, we need change, because incomes are stagnant, the country is in the wrong direction, college costs too much, the healthcare system is messed up. They want change and Trump and Carson, because they have no connection to poiltics as usual, seem great to them. (10:34)<br /><br /><strong>Ingraham:</strong> How do so many of these reporters, though, whose job it is to report...they&rsquo;ve been seeing these numbers, that 62% think the country is going in the wrong direction, 72% think Boehner and McConnell, they disapprove of their leadership, 62% think the GOP has betrayed them. They see these numbers even if they don&rsquo;t go out and talk to people. So, how is it that it&rsquo;s Trump and Carson, how is it their problem? They weren&rsquo;t in Washington when all these people started getting mad at Washington. I&rsquo;m just not, I&rsquo;m not seeing how people miss the writing on the wall here. I don&rsquo;t see it. (11:54)<br /><br /><strong>Halperin: </strong>You&rsquo;re going to bring out my inner Kevin Phillips or Pat Buchanan. I just think these are out of touch elites who don&rsquo;t spend enough time talking to real people or thinking about things from any perspective but the most wealthy and elite people they hang out with. I&rsquo;m not saying those guys will be the nominee or be president, they could be, but there&rsquo;s a reason why they&rsquo;re doing so well. You know, the person who&rsquo;s moving up the fastest is Ted Cruz who, although he&rsquo;s a United States Senator, is another person who is not interested in business as usual, is not interested in the status quo. And, I don&rsquo;t know where all the Establishment vote is currently, because right now there&rsquo;s not a single Establishment candidate, Bush, Kasich, Rubio, or Christie, who&rsquo;s doing particularly well in the polls.So, perhaps the Establishment will reassert itself, but for now, unhappiness with Washington that&rsquo;s been building up for years, you see it now with what&rsquo;s going on in the House of Representatives, is manifesting itself in a party that&rsquo;s saying whatever we do, whoever we pick, it&rsquo;s got to be someone we have some degree of confidence and will bring about fundamental change. Right now, that&rsquo;s people who are not career politicians. (12:36)<br /></blockquote> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Mark-Halperin:-Elites-Still-Dont-Get-The-Trump/Sanders-Crossover-Appeal/948810976559093716.htmlStaff2015-10-14T17:06:00ZMike Allen: White House Labels Paul Ryan 'Substantive, Smart'Staffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Mike-Allen:-White-House-Labels-Paul-Ryan-Substantive,-Smart/-407046745955703953.html2015-10-12T16:41:00Z2015-10-12T16:41:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<p style="font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;"><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT872_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">Today</span> on </span><span style="color: #000000; font-style: italic; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">The Laura Ingraham Show</span><span style="color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">, Mike Allen, Politico&rsquo;s Chief White House Correspondent, discussed the possibility of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) running for Speaker of the House. According to Allen, the White House admires Ryan for being &ldquo;a substantive, smart guy.&rdquo; He said the White House is hoping, if Ryan is chosen as Speaker, they will be able to &ldquo;deal with him&rdquo; during the final year of the Obama administration. Allen also addressed Ryan&rsquo;s relationship with the House Freedom Caucus, saying the Wisconsin representative will not be willing to make deals with the caucus, as McCarthy did. </span></p>
<br />
<p style="font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Allen also noted Rep. Ryan has not formally announced a bid for the speakership, suggesting Ryan may be eyeing a future presidential run, which would be negatively impacted by accepting the position. Specifically, he said Ryan is being &ldquo;smartly reluctant&rdquo; in postponing his final decision. Ingraham pushed back on this reasoning, suggesting public service should not be dependent on convenience, but requires sacrifice for the best interest of the country.</span></p>
</span>
<p>Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjc3NQ==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote style="font-size: 12.8px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="color: #000000; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Ingraham: </span><span style="color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Tell me what you think, when you think the White House is thinking of a speaker they can work with in the last year of his presidency. What would they think about a Paul Ryan as speaker over at the White House? (12:47)</span></p>
<br />
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="color: #000000; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Allen: </span><span style="color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Well, the White House would like that idea because they would like one more win and they think that he&rsquo;s - the President thinks a lot about intellect - and what they&rsquo;ve always told me is that they admire Paul Ryan for being a substantive, smart guy. Now, the question is, if he were to get it, it would be the hope in the White House that they could kind of deal with him, I don&rsquo;t know that that&rsquo;s the case. We have a great story up right now by Greg Sherman that asks a very smart question: What would it take for Paul Ryan to go ahead and run? Because, you know, he was sincerely opposed to it, I think the calculation is that being speaker <span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT873_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span> makes him less likely to be president down the road. I think he would love to be president or run for president when his kids are older. So, this would be very much taking one for the team. He has said, no, no, no, but now they&rsquo;re saying they&rsquo;re thinking about it. And, you read between the lines of the quotes of people who know the chairman&rsquo;s thinking and it sounds like it could happen. Sherman says the way you will not do it is he will not do it by force trading. Other people want to be speaker will try to make deals with them, Kevin McCarthy was doing that. The Ryan approach is going to be yes, we&rsquo;ll consider your reforms, yes, I will consider some of your procedural changes, but if you want me, you&rsquo;re going to want me as who I am because you think I would do the job great, not because I&rsquo;ve made some promise to you. &nbsp;(13:02)</span></p>
<br />
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="color: #000000; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Ingraham: </span><span style="color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Again, this is one of those issues where I think many in the establishment political class are missing the boat. Paul Ryan being chosen as speaker would be seen as a thumb in the eye of most grassroots conservatives. And, I&rsquo;ll tell you why. Two issues. Number one, he just delivered Obama his singular accomplishment of the year, which was Trade Promotion Authority, paving the way ultimately for probably a successful vote on the Trans Pacific Partnership. So, that&rsquo;s number one. Number two, Paul Ryan, since he worked for Jack Kemp, has been a notorious champion of escorting more foreign workers into the United States, massive proponent of mass immigration into the United States. A big piece up on Brietbart about that, just going back and quoting him, including an interview with Raymond Arroyo on EWTN. A lot of his work going back many, many years. So, for those two issues, which are two huge issues as we see with the Trump candidacy, I think Paul Ryan fails that test for the grassroots. But, I can see why the White House would want to work with him and why a lot of Republicans will. (14:49)</span></p>
<br />
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="color: #000000; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Allen: </span><span style="color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">And, you can see where Paul Ryan is probably smartly reluctant. &nbsp;(15:59)</span></p>
<br />
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="color: #000000; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Ingraham: </span><span style="color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Public service is supposed to be public service, not that it&rsquo;s necessarily convenient to the candidate, right? I mean, George Washington left Mount Vernon to sleep on a cold floor at Valley Forge to fight for this country. So, the idea that oh, it&rsquo;s my family - it&rsquo;s public service. (16:03)</span></p>
<br />
<p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="color: #000000; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Allen:</span><span style="color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;"> It&rsquo;s why it could happen. That&rsquo;s why it&rsquo;s clear they&rsquo;re actually thinking about it. Which, in the past, I think it would have been a clearly closed door. (16:21)</span></p>
</span></blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</blockquote> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Mike-Allen:-White-House-Labels-Paul-Ryan-Substantive,-Smart/-407046745955703953.htmlStaff2015-10-12T16:41:00ZRand Paul: America Doesn't Want a Bush or a ClintonStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Rand-Paul:-America-Doesnt-Want-a-Bush-or-a-Clinton/-836781242982526658.html2015-10-08T17:06:00Z2015-10-08T17:06:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on&nbsp;<em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) addressed the neo-conservative push for increased involvement in the Middle East. According to Paul, it would be a &ldquo;big, big mistake&rdquo; to establish a no fly zone in Syria. He slammed Fiorina for saying the United States should cut off communication with Russia predicting, &ldquo;that&rsquo;s a recipe for having an altercation with Russia.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Paul also addressed Jeb Bush&rsquo;s decision to bring his brother to campaign for him in certain states. The Kentucky senator predicted that this tactic may help Jeb in the primary, but &ldquo;it would be very difficult for a Bush or a Clinton to win&rdquo; in the general election.</p>
<p>Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp;jsessionid=C17B24A1678B2E21D19768184ED60E90?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjc1Nw==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>There are many on the right who are having many sleepless nights over what&rsquo;s happening in Syria. Specifically, Putin&rsquo;s commitment of resources and man power and obviously weaponry. We saw those missiles fired on Syrian targets overnight. Should the American people take this seriously as a real challenge to America&rsquo;s supremacy in the world? To listen, again, to mostly neo-conservative voices, Weekly Standard, National Review, they want us far more involved in the Middle East than we are now for a variety of reasons &ndash; strategic, security, I&rsquo;m sure energy, Israel. (6:35)</p>
<p><strong>Paul:&nbsp;</strong>One of the things we ought to do is absolutely think about what got us into the situation and be very, very careful we don&rsquo;t get drug into World War 3. People like Rubio and Fiorina want to have a no fly zone over there, they want a red line in the sky, but that&rsquo;s a recipe for having an altercation with Russia and I think it&rsquo;s a big, big mistake. They&rsquo;ve been invited in there by Iraq. How are we going to possibly say we&rsquo;re going to push Russia out when they&rsquo;ve been invited by the very country that has us in there? They also have Iran. Iran is in Iraq and now Russia is going to be flying over Iraq. We have people like Fiorina saying we shouldn&rsquo;t talk to Putin, boy, is that a recipe for war and a recipe for an accident to happen. So, we need to keep open lines of communication and we need to be diplomatically engaged. We need to be strong, as Reagan was, peace through strength. Strong enough to deter attacks, to repel attacks, but also strong enough to know when an intervention may well back fire. And, this is still repercussion of the Iraq War. Toppling Hussein has allowed Iraq to become allied with Iran and allowed them and Syria now to be aligned with Russia. But, it&rsquo;s a consequence of intervention gone awry. &nbsp;(7:14)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>Looks like Jeb Bush is going to bring his brother to campaign for him in certain states, among them South Carolina. I guess a few others. How do you think that might play given where we were in 2008, approval numbers for Bush, it sounds like a leading question, but it is quite something that after saying he&rsquo;s his own man, he&rsquo;s bringing in his brother and referencing how his father&rsquo;s health is improved because he&rsquo;s excited about the race. Any thoughts on that? (8:27)</p>
<p><strong>Paul:&nbsp;</strong>There&rsquo;s a possibility that could help. Jeb&rsquo;s fortunes are very much flagging at this point, and could it help him to bring his brother in? Perhaps in the primary. The problem is that I don&rsquo;t think he or his brother could win a general election, in fact. I think it would be very difficult for a Bush or a Clinton to win and it&rsquo;ll be sort of a toss up if we have a Bush and a Clinton running against each other. I don&rsquo;t think either one of them are very popular in a general election. So, will it help in the primary? Maybe. (9:01)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</blockquote> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Rand-Paul:-America-Doesnt-Want-a-Bush-or-a-Clinton/-836781242982526658.htmlStaff2015-10-08T17:06:00ZCarson: If We Get Another Progressive, Start Looking for Some Place Else to LiveStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Carson:-If-We-Get-Another-Progressive,-Start-Looking-for-Some-Place-Else-to-Live/-736539961849808665.html2015-10-07T16:50:00Z2015-10-07T16:50:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on&nbsp;<em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson discussed the rise of political outsiders, as the Establishment candidates are down to single digits in many key states. According to Carson, the American people are lumping together all politicians as &ldquo;people who are ineffective,&rdquo; and are seeking candidates who have &ldquo;clearly accomplished things&rdquo; outside the political arena. He believes voters will refuse to vote for a candidate who will &ldquo;just submit to the Washington Establishment and say, this is the way it is here.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Due to the festering frustration among the American people, Carson claims, &ldquo;it&rsquo;s a very bad time to be an incumbent politician.&rdquo; Though the Establishment candidates are all struggling, Carson explicitly referenced Jeb saying, &ldquo;to be a Bush, that compounds your problem, because of the name . . . the timing is just not good for him.&rdquo; However, he conceded Jeb&rsquo;s problem extends beyond his name and timing. The former neurosurgeon warned, &ldquo;If we get another progressive in there, and they get two or three Supreme Court picks, you may as well start looking for some place else to live.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjc0Nw==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>I actually know why you&rsquo;re near the top of the polls, but why do you think these Establishment characters are down in single digits in so many of these key battleground states? (3:42)</p>
<p><strong>Carson:&nbsp;</strong>Well, from what I&rsquo;ve been able to gather just by talking to people across the country, is that they are incredibly frustrated. They have over the last few elections sent people to Washington who were expected to make a difference, and no difference has been made. So, they&rsquo;re being all lumped together as people who are ineffective. And, they&rsquo;re looking more at people who have had real life experience and who have, clearly, accomplished things. I believe that&rsquo;s what&rsquo;s happening. It&rsquo;s a very bad time to be an incumbent politician. And, to be a Bush, that compounds your problem, because of the name. And, you know, Jeb&rsquo;s really a very nice guy, but the timing is not good for him. (3:53)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>Do you think it&rsquo;s just the name and the timing? Or, what about the issues? The critical issues that the Republicans, I think, have seen a huge divide develop between the Establishment viewpoint, the donor class, and the people on issues like immigration and trade? (4:43)</p>
<p><strong>Carson:&nbsp;</strong>Sure, there&rsquo;s no question that the people want somebody who will stand up. We&rsquo;ve had too many people who just say, well, it&rsquo;s not that important and we&rsquo;ll get it the next time. Well, there is no next time, because we&rsquo;re on the precipice right now, ready to go over the cliff. If we get another progressive in there, and they get two or three Supreme Court picks, you may as well start looking for some place else to live. And, I think the majority of American people actually realize that. (4:59)</p>
</blockquote> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Carson:-If-We-Get-Another-Progressive,-Start-Looking-for-Some-Place-Else-to-Live/-736539961849808665.htmlStaff2015-10-07T16:50:00ZCarly: Decrease Immigration, Implement Employer VerificationStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Carly:-Decrease-Immigration,-Implement-Employer-Verification/-35663274070569084.html2015-10-06T16:53:00Z2015-10-06T16:53:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on&nbsp;<em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, Carly Fiorina responded to a&nbsp;<a href="http://cis.org/One-in-Five-US-Residents-Speaks-Foreign-Language-at-Home" target="_blank">new study</a>, which revealed 63.2 million US residents, or 21%, speak a language other than English at home. Carly said this &ldquo;is an illustration of the fact that our legal immigration system is as big a problem as anything else.&rdquo; &nbsp;In light of these figures, <span id=":1jc.4">Fiorina</span> conceded that, given the choice between increasing and decreasing levels of immigration, they should be decreased. In regards to internal enforcement, she also stressed the importance of implementing reliable employer verification systems.</p>
<p>Ingraham voiced concerns surrounding Fiorina&rsquo;s growing relationship with the Koch brothers. Earlier this week, Reuters&nbsp;<a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/255890-report-koch-brothers-taking-serious-look-at-fiorina" target="_blank">reported</a>&nbsp;that the brothers were taking a &ldquo;serious look&rdquo; at Fiorina, noting a Koch Industries PAC also helped sponsor a fundraiser for Fiorina in 2010. Ingraham pressed Fiorina on this relationship, asking how she intended to balance donations from the Koch&rsquo;s with their differing views on immigration.<strong>&nbsp;</strong>Fiorina admitted&nbsp;<strong>"I am at odds in some cases with where the Koch brother&rsquo;s are on immigration,"&nbsp;</strong>but promised, &ldquo;this is not some trade for a position. I would not do that.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjczNw==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>New examination of the numbers of people coming into the country, legally, not illegally, but legally, and then the total number of immigrants in the country today. New report just came out today based on the Census national household survey that there are 63.2% non-English speaking people in the United States. The fastest growing language in the United States is Arabic, then there&rsquo;s Chinese, and so forth. What is your reaction to that number? Who voted for that influx of legal immigrants into the United States? (5:33)</p>
<p><strong>Fiorina:&nbsp;</strong>Well, of course, nobody voted for it and, of course, it is an illustration of the fact that our legal immigration system is as big a problem as anything else. It&rsquo;s not just that we have people sneaking across the border, it&rsquo;s not just that we have sanctuary cities, it&rsquo;s not just that our border is insecure. Our legal immigration system has been a problem for 25 years now, it truly has. We let the wrong people in, we send the wrong people home. And, what this requires is a top to bottom examination of what is our immigration strategy. What is the set of laws that we need to put in place that we&rsquo;re prepared to enforce? For example, employer verification systems that actually work so that we can hold them accountable. (6:14)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>Do you think immigration should be increased into the United States or decreased? (7:03)</p>
<p><strong>Fiorina:&nbsp;</strong>Well, certainly, given those two choices the answer is decreased, not increased. I also think we need to have a serious conversation about how do we help immigrants assimilate. Of course, let&rsquo;s be clear, this nation was built on immigration and wave after wave of immigrants have come to this country and it has taken time for them to assimilate and learn the language. On the other hand, if there is no attempt at assimilation, if there is no requirement to learn English, than we are putting our melting pot, unique American culture, at risk. We need to have a serious conversation about this. And, I think that&rsquo;s what voters really are saying. It&rsquo;s why they&rsquo;re so angry. It&rsquo;s like, you know what, we&rsquo;ve been talking about this every election cycle, literally, for decades. It&rsquo;s not a new subject, yet it never changes. (7:16)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>The Koch brothers are terrific on so many issues. I think on the issue of immigration you might butt heads with them, on this issue of, especially, legal immigration. So, how does Carly Fiorina who needs the Koch brother&rsquo;s money, how do you balance on that issue? (11:35)</p>
<p><strong>Fiorina:&nbsp;</strong>There is no conversation with a donor of any level. I don&rsquo;t care if it&rsquo;s $5 or $5,000 that says this is what I will do for you on this issue. A, I wouldn&rsquo;t do that. B, it&rsquo;s illegal. So, the point is, this is not some trade for a position. I would not do that. And, yeah, I am at odds in some cases with where the Koch brother&rsquo;s are on immigration. But, to me, the answer is very clear now, we have an immigration system that is out of control. And, it has been out of control for far too long, and I, personally, as I think most Americans are, I&rsquo;m tired of listening to politicians talk about it. Because that&rsquo;s all they do, they talk about it. They never lead. (11:36)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</blockquote> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Carly:-Decrease-Immigration,-Implement-Employer-Verification/-35663274070569084.htmlStaff2015-10-06T16:53:00ZFiorina to Rubio: 'You can't learn executive decision making on the fly'Staffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Fiorina-to-Rubio:-You-cant-learn-executive-decision-making-on-the-fly/-750402104509712224.html2015-10-06T16:36:00Z2015-10-06T16:36:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br>On <span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT820_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span>&rsquo;s program, Carly Fiorina distinguished herself from Sen. Marco Rubio, who is rumored to be the Establishment&rsquo;s &ldquo;bridge candidate&rdquo; choice. Fiorina first pointed to the latest NBC/WSJ poll, which shows her leading Hillary by double digits in both Iowa and New Hampshire, the largest Republican lead against Democrats in those important states. She also pointed to Rubio&rsquo;s lack of experience, claiming &ldquo;a tough vote is not a tough call.&rdquo; According to Fiorina, the presidency requires a lifetime of executive experience making, not merely one term in the Senate. The former HP CEO argued these experiences cannot be learned&nbsp; &ldquo;on the fly,&rdquo; but must be cultivated over years of experience. Carly then pointed to her own background, during which she &ldquo;spent a lifetime challenging the status quo, producing results, and solving festering problems.&rdquo;
<p>Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjczNw==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>Now a lot of people think Marco Rubio&rsquo;s the guy because he&rsquo;s the fresh young face and he&rsquo;s Latino and he&rsquo;s very well spoken and he can be the Establishment&rsquo;s choice or maybe a bridge candidate between Tea Party and the Establishment. How are you different from Marco? I know you&rsquo;re your own person, but I see you as a potential bridge candidate who could bring the whole party together, but a lot of people think Marco is the guy to do that, if Bush really does implode. (13:28)</p>
<p><strong>Fiorina:&nbsp;</strong>Well, first, I do think I&rsquo;m a bridge candidate. Second of all, I&rsquo;m beating Hillary Clinton head to head by double digits in both Iowa and New Hampshire. But, third, I have a lifetime of executive decision making experience. The presidency requires someone who understands how to make a tough call in a tough time and stand up and be held to account. And, with all due respect to Marco Rubio who&rsquo;s a great candidate, a tough vote is not a tough call. You can&rsquo;t learn executive decision making on the fly in the Oval Office. You have to have spent a lifetime learning how to stand up and make tough calls. I have spent a lifetime doing that. And, I have also spent a lifetime challenging the status quo, producing results, and solving festering problems. That is what we need in the Oval Office now. (14:02)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</blockquote> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Fiorina-to-Rubio:-You-cant-learn-executive-decision-making-on-the-fly/-750402104509712224.htmlStaff2015-10-06T16:36:00ZCarly: Decrease Immigration, Implement Employer VerificationStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Carly:-Decrease-Immigration,-Implement-Employer-Verification/374269266630102669.html2015-10-06T16:28:00Z2015-10-06T16:28:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on&nbsp;<em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, Carly Fiorina responded to a&nbsp;<a href="http://cis.org/One-in-Five-US-Residents-Speaks-Foreign-Language-at-Home" target="_blank">new study</a>, which revealed 63.2 million US residents, or 21%, speak a language other than English at home. Carly said this &ldquo;is an illustration of the fact that our legal immigration system is as big a problem as anything else.&rdquo; &nbsp;In light of these figures, Fiorina conceded that, given the choice between increasing and decreasing levels of immigration, they should be decreased. In regards to internal enforcement, she also stressed the importance of implementing reliable employer verification systems.</p>
<p>Ingraham voiced concerns surrounding Fiorina&rsquo;s growing relationship with the Koch brothers. Earlier this week, Reuters&nbsp;<a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/255890-report-koch-brothers-taking-serious-look-at-fiorina" target="_blank">reported</a>&nbsp;that the brothers were taking a &ldquo;serious look&rdquo; at Fiorina, noting a Koch Industries PAC also helped sponsor a fundraiser for Fiorina in 2010. Ingraham pressed Fiorina on this relationship, asking how she intended to balance donations from the Koch&rsquo;s with their differing views on immigration. Fiorina responded emphatically, promising &ldquo;this is not some trade for a position. I would not do that.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjczNw==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>New examination of the numbers of people coming into the country, legally, not illegally, but legally, and then the total number of immigrants in the country today. New report just came out today based on the Census national household survey that there are 63.2% non-English speaking people in the United States. The fastest growing language in the United States is Arabic, then there&rsquo;s Chinese, and so forth. What is your reaction to that number? Who voted for that influx of legal immigrants into the United States? (5:33)</p>
<p><strong>Fiorina:&nbsp;</strong>Well, of course, nobody voted for it and, of course, it is an illustration of the fact that our legal immigration system is as big a problem as anything else. It&rsquo;s not just that we have people sneaking across the border, it&rsquo;s not just that we have sanctuary cities, it&rsquo;s not just that our border is insecure. Our legal immigration system has been a problem for 25 years now, it truly has. We let the wrong people in, we send the wrong people home. And, what this requires is a top to bottom examination of what is our immigration strategy. What is the set of laws that we need to put in place that we&rsquo;re prepared to enforce? For example, employer verification systems that actually work so that we can hold them accountable. (6:14)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>Do you think immigration should be increased into the United States or decreased? (7:03)</p>
<p><strong>Fiorina:&nbsp;</strong>Well, certainly, given those two choices the answer is decreased, not increased. I also think we need to have a serious conversation about how do we help immigrants assimilate. Of course, let&rsquo;s be clear, this nation was built on immigration and wave after wave of immigrants have come to this country and it has taken time for them to assimilate and learn the language. On the other hand, if there is no attempt at assimilation, if there is no requirement to learn English, than we are putting our melting pot, unique American culture, at risk. We need to have a serious conversation about this. And, I think that&rsquo;s what voters really are saying. It&rsquo;s why they&rsquo;re so angry. It&rsquo;s like, you know what, we&rsquo;ve been talking about this every election cycle, literally, for decades. It&rsquo;s not a new subject, yet it never changes. (7:16)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>The Koch brothers are terrific on so many issues. I think on the issue of immigration you might butt heads with them, on this issue of, especially, legal immigration. So, how does Carly Fiorina who needs the Koch brother&rsquo;s money, how do you balance on that issue? (11:35)</p>
<p><strong>Fiorina:&nbsp;</strong>There is no conversation with a donor of any level. I don&rsquo;t care if it&rsquo;s $5 or $5,000 that says this is what I will do for you on this issue. A, I wouldn&rsquo;t do that. B, it&rsquo;s illegal. So, the point is, this is not some trade for a position. I would not do that. And, yeah, I am at odds in some cases with where the Koch brother&rsquo;s are on immigration. But, to me, the answer is very clear now, we have an immigration system that is out of control. And, it has been out of control for far too long, and I, personally, as I think most Americans are, I&rsquo;m tired of listening to politicians talk about it. Because that&rsquo;s all they do, they talk about it. They never lead. (11:36)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</blockquote> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Carly:-Decrease-Immigration,-Implement-Employer-Verification/374269266630102669.htmlStaff2015-10-06T16:28:00ZBuchanan: Rubio's Foreign Policy "Almost a Disqualifier"Staffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Buchanan:-Rubios-Foreign-Policy-Almost-a-Disqualifier/934825563777851838.html2015-10-05T17:24:00Z2015-10-05T17:24:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on&nbsp;<em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, Pat Buchanan discussed the ongoing debate over U.S. involvement in Syria. He specifically addressed Marco Rubio&rsquo;s call to &ldquo;XYZ.&rdquo; Buchanan found Rubio&rsquo;s statements laughable, chuckling at the idea of the United States successfully eliminating Assad, al-Qaeda, the al-Nursa Front, and Boko Haram. As the United States is not in a war with Syria, Buchanan warned against setting up a no-fly zone over Syria, which would involve shooting down Syrian helicopters and air defense. Regarding Assad, Buchanan pointed out that unlike the terrorist groups, such as ISIS and al-Qaeda, Assad has never attacked the United States, which is why we have never formally declared war on Syria.</p>
<p>After explaining Rubio&rsquo;s misguided statements on foreign policy, Buchanan suggested Rubio is saying these things, &ldquo;because he knows that&rsquo;s where the base of the Republican Party is.&rdquo; Further, he said the Florida Senator&rsquo;s lack of knowledge on foreign policy is &ldquo;almost a disqualifier.&rdquo; However, Buchanan also addressed Rubio&rsquo;s low poll numbers, saying if he is &ldquo;clobbered&rdquo; in Iowa and New Hampshire in just a few months, the senator will not have a shot at the nomination, despite support from the Establishment.</p>
<p>Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjcyNw==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Ingraham:</strong>&nbsp;I think the guy that they&rsquo;re looking to now, perhaps instead of Jeb, should somehow the Bush machine be ground to a halt because the donors say you&rsquo;re just not working, is Marco Rubio. (7:30)</p>
<p><strong>Buchanan:</strong>&nbsp;I agree with you, I think the Establishment is looking around for the candidate, for the anti-Trump candidate, who will emerge when Carly Fiorina and Dr. Carson, and even Trump, collapse, which they don&rsquo;t look like they&rsquo;re going to do right now. I think they&rsquo;re settling on Marco Rubio as the guy, but you look at the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, if he gets clobbered in both of those, where does he win his big victory to break out? And, we are now getting closer and closer, I think we&rsquo;re four months out from the Iowa caucuses. (7:45)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham:</strong>&nbsp;Marco Rubio was discussing Syria, because I know most Americans wake up in a cold sweat worrying about Syria, but Rubio was discussing Syria recently and said this.</p>
<p><em>*Rubio speaking on Assad*</em></p>
<p><strong>Buchanan:</strong>&nbsp;Assad, al-Qaeda, the al Nursa Front all need to go. Tell them to get out of there. Who do they think rises if Assad falls? What is the matter with these people? There are only two major forces besides Assad in there, one is the al Nursa front, which is al Qaeda, the people who did 9/11, and the other is ISIS, a barbaric, horrific crowd that owns half of Syria and a third of Iraq. He calls Assad all these names, but Assad has never attacked the United States. We have no authorization to go to war against him. If Congress wants to set a no fly zone up over Syria, that involves shooting down Syrian helicopters and planes and hitting their air defense, that&rsquo;s an act of war. When did Congress authorize a war on Syria? They did not. (10:20)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>Why is Rubio saying and doing what he&rsquo;s doing do you think? (11:37)</p>
<p><strong>Buchanan:</strong>&nbsp;I think Rubio&rsquo;s doing it because he knows that&rsquo;s where the base of the Republican Party is at and that&rsquo;s where he knows he&rsquo;s not going to get himself hurt by calling Assad all these names. But, as for serious foreign policy, it&rsquo;s almost a disqualifier. (11:38)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</blockquote> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Buchanan:-Rubios-Foreign-Policy-Almost-a-Disqualifier/934825563777851838.htmlStaff2015-10-05T17:24:00ZRep. Jones: Congress Sold Itself Out for Re-Election on TPPStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Rep.-Jones:-Congress-Sold-Itself-Out-for-Re-Election-on-TPP/-203742141213469114.html2015-10-05T17:00:00Z2015-10-05T17:00:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Monday, the United States and 11 other Pacific Rim nations announced they have reached an agreement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Shortly after the announcement, Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) shared his frustration about the deal on&nbsp;<em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>. The Republicans failed to defeat the Trade Promotion Authority earlier this summer, which ultimately prevents Congress from changing anything in the TPP agreement. Reflecting on this failure, Jones said, &ldquo;Congress has a right, given to it by the Constitution, and yet we advocate that right by selling ourselves out to get re-elected.&rdquo; Ingraham expanded on this sentiment, reminding listeners the TPP was pushed by large corporations and donors, not as policy aimed to improve the lives of average Americans.</p>
<p>Jones&rsquo; biggest concern surrounding the TPP, however, is the immense secrecy that has surrounded the deal from the very beginning. The full text of the agreement has yet to be released, which means, according to Jones, the details will be discovered piecemeal only after the agreement becomes the law of the land. The vagueness of the deal, Jones said, is &ldquo;why I just get so enraged when I see what&rsquo;s happening to the American people by Congress.&rdquo;</p>
<p class="p1">Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjcyNQ==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div>
<p><strong>Ingraham:</strong>&nbsp;Explain, Congressman, why that TPA was so critical for Republicans to defeat. (3:51)</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><strong>Jones:</strong>&nbsp;Well, you know, I would go to my very dear friend Ron Paul, when he made this statement in a debate, and Ron&rsquo;s not in Congress anymore, as you know, but, it says, I took this from the statement that he made talking about the Constitution, and he said, &ldquo;Furthermore, it concentrates vast powers in the hands of a president in ways that undermine our nation&rsquo;s sovereignty.&rdquo; That says it all, Laura. America has a Constitution. Congress has a right, given to it, by the Constitution, and yet we advocate that right by selling ourselves out to get re-elected. That&rsquo;s what really upsets me, quite frankly. (3:56)</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><strong>Ingraham:</strong>&nbsp;People have to understand that because of the TPA, Congress now has essentially zero ability to change the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. There was, as far as I could tell, no Republican in the room when they announced this deal. So, Paul Ryan&rsquo;s like, wow, we&rsquo;re going to have all this input, it&rsquo;s going to be great, and we&rsquo;re going to be part of the rule making. The fact is, you&rsquo;re not part of anything. Your donors wanted this things passed, the big corporations were desperate to have this thing passed, because they want to be able to move capital and personnel to whatever country is in the deal. Maybe it&rsquo;ll be here, maybe it won&rsquo;t be here. They just want those rules in place so they can move their capital. Meanwhile, we the people, if it doesn&rsquo;t work for us and our workers, and we know it won&rsquo;t because these things never do, the people will have no recourse for, how many years is this going to last? We don&rsquo;t even have the full text of it, but how many years with the TPP last? 9 years? 10 years? Longer? (4:50)</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><strong>Jones:&nbsp;</strong>Laura, that&rsquo;s the whole thing. This was done in secrecy; we all know that, you had reported on that numerous times. It was done in secrecy. I went down and read the summary of the Trans-Pacific Partnership; you couldn&rsquo;t take any notes, you just had to go in there and read it. You couldn&rsquo;t take any technology in there, photograph any pages to help remember what you read. And, when I came out after reading, I spent about an hour and twenty minutes in there, it doesn&rsquo;t really matter, but, when I came out my staff was waiting for me, who handles these issues for me, and I said, &ldquo;Josh, what really concerns me is the vagueness, the vagueness, of what I read. That means the details in it will come later, after the treaty becomes the law of the land, if it should pass, then we start finding out the details, just like NAFTA.&rdquo; And, that&rsquo;s why, I just get so enraged when I see what&rsquo;s happening to the American people by the Congress. &nbsp;(5:46)</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</blockquote> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Rep.-Jones:-Congress-Sold-Itself-Out-for-Re-Election-on-TPP/-203742141213469114.htmlStaff2015-10-05T17:00:00ZGingrich: The Establishment Model 'Not Going to Work'Staffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Gingrich:-The-Establishment-Model-Not-Going-to-Work/887457777350017833.html2015-10-02T17:29:00Z2015-10-02T17:29:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on&nbsp;<em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, outlined his predictions for the 2016 GOP race. This week, Jeb Bush&rsquo;s campaign labeled Rubio a &ldquo;Republican Obama&rdquo; and is, reportedly, attempting to dig up dirt on John Kasich in Ohio. According to Ingraham, this is just the beginning of campaign&rsquo;s operation &ldquo;to unload and unleash&rdquo; on competitors. Gingrich labeled this model &ldquo;an Establishment kind of model,&rdquo; pointing to Romney who employed similar tactics in 2008 and 2012. This tactic, according to the former Speaker, shrinks opponents so the Establishment candidate &ldquo;ends up looking taller by comparison.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Though the Establishment model has worked in the past, Gingrich revealed &ldquo;it&rsquo;s wrong, I think it&rsquo;s not going to work&rdquo; in 2016. He justified this prediction saying consultancy class was unprepared for the current political climate; according to Gingrich, &ldquo;This is not the world they planned for.&rdquo; Ultimately, he suggested that each of the candidates needs to &ldquo;take a deep breath and rethink what their campaign is doing,&rdquo; especially as the United States continues to face conflict in the Middle East and catastrophic job reports.</p>
<p class="p1">Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjcxNQ==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>Some interesting developments on the 2016 front, now Jeb Bush and the Bush operation, according to John Kasich, are in Ohio going through his gubernatorial archives. Apparently in an attempt to dig up dirt on John Kasich, he tweeted that out last night. He essentially called Rubio a Republican Obama 48 hours ago, which we played on the show as well, and made the argument that Rubio has no experience, we already dealt with a man, a one term Senator, who had no experience. So, it looks like the Bush operation is ready to unload and unleash with its $130 million on any competitor who gets in his way. (7:20)</p>
<p><strong>Gingrich:&nbsp;</strong>I think it&rsquo;s sad that one of the models that the Establishment uses is to try to shrink everyone else so that their candidate, whoever it is, ends up looking taller by comparison. And, that&rsquo;s a model that Romney used in both &rsquo;08 and &rsquo;12 and it&rsquo;s very much an Establishment kind of model. This is what their kind of consultants do. I think it&rsquo;s wrong, I think it&rsquo;s not going to work. And, by the way, in terms of &rsquo;16, I thought the most interesting number on money was not that Bernie Sanders raised $26 million to Hillary&rsquo;s $28. It is that Ben Carson raised $20 million, it&rsquo;s been way underreported in the news media. But, Carson has built a much bigger fundraising base than anyone thought possible back in January. (8:11)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>Tell me how you think it&rsquo;s actually going to go down though. If Jeb Bush is sitting on $150 million or somewhere close to it in January. Do you really think Ben Carson could still be a major force in the Republican Party? He might have $20 million, but Jeb has 150. (9:04)</p>
<p><strong>Gingrich:&nbsp;</strong>Carson is actually going to out raise, I think will probably out raise Jeb this quarter in hard money. Look, I think this, the challenge for the consultant class this year is there are too many candidates. You&rsquo;re not going to be able to run an anti-Rubio, anti-Kasich, anti-Christie, anti-Trump, anti-Fiorina, anti-Carson, anti-Cruz, at some point any candidate who does that is going to look like a fool. And, I think that&rsquo;s a real challenge. (9:25)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>Don&rsquo;t you think the Bush&rsquo;s thought the big field was going to work out to their benefit and it was only Trump entering the race that disrupted that narrative for them. Because, they thought they&rsquo;d have all these candidates and that they&rsquo;d raise some money, but as long as they could sit on a pile of cash before the Iowa caucuses, ultimately, they&rsquo;d win that game of attrition, because they&rsquo;d be able to do to them what they did to you in Florida. (9:57)</p>
<p><strong>Gingrich:&nbsp;</strong>Sure, and that&rsquo;s not illegitimate on their part. But, now the challenge they&rsquo;ve got is that they&rsquo;re in a very different world. This is not the world they planned for, it&rsquo;s not the world anybody planned for. And, when you look at things like Putin in Syria, this world is going to get even stranger before we get to the nomination. And, nobody&rsquo;s prepared for all the things that are coming. Look at the jobs report today, which is a disaster. And, so, you&rsquo;re going to see everybody needs to take a deep breath and rethink what their campaign is doing in a different world, with a different situation, than anybody planned for. And, that&rsquo;s where we are today. (10:21)</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</blockquote> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Gingrich:-The-Establishment-Model-Not-Going-to-Work/887457777350017833.htmlStaff2015-10-02T17:29:00ZNY Times Reporter: Trump 'Shatters the Political Mold'Staffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/NY-Times-Reporter:-Trump-Shatters-the-Political-Mold/-523186247998528408.html2015-10-01T16:18:00Z2015-10-01T16:18:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT835_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">Today</span> on&nbsp;<em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, New York Times reporter, Jeremy Peters, discussed Trump&rsquo;s continuing success in the polls. The billionaire, despite having been criticized, by Peters, for &ldquo;alienating demographics by saying pretty hostile, boring, and hateful things,&rdquo; is up six points in the latest USA <span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT836_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">Today</span> poll. Despite his outrageous comments, however, Peters concedes voters are attracted to Trump because he &ldquo;smashes the system that voters believe is so corrupt.&rdquo; The NY Times reporter has spoken with dozens of people at Trump rallies, who he said are also drawn to Trump&rsquo;s independent wealth. According to Peters, not being held to the desires of special interests sends an &ldquo;incredibly powerful message&rdquo; that resonates with the American people.<br />
<p class="p1">Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjcwMw==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>Why do you think Trump is number one in every poll and has grown by 6 points in the latest USA Today poll? Despite the fact that he says these things that are kind of outrageous, he insults people, he says a swear word in New Hampshire last night. Why do you think he&rsquo;s up 6 points? Because he&rsquo;s just a terrible, awful person? (13:24)</p>
<p><strong>Peters:&nbsp;</strong>I spent a lot of time talking to people at his rallies, dozens of them actually, and there really is this sense that he shatters the political mold. He smashes the system that voters believe is so corrupt and tainted, because he&rsquo;s not part of it. He can fight against it. And, he can&rsquo;t be bought, because he&rsquo;s self made, he&rsquo;s wealthy, he won&rsquo;t be under the thumb of the special interests. And, I think that&rsquo;s an incredibly powerful message. (13:39)</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</blockquote> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/NY-Times-Reporter:-Trump-Shatters-the-Political-Mold/-523186247998528408.htmlStaff2015-10-01T16:18:00ZKudlow: Trump's Tax Plan is 'Jeb Plus'Staffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Kudlow:-Trumps-Tax-Plan-is-Jeb-Plus/796738212297795436.html2015-09-30T16:58:00Z2015-09-30T16:58:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on <em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, Larry Kudlow, senior contributor for CNBC, unpacked Trump and Bush&rsquo;s competing tax plans. Pointing to history, Kudlow argued that with the right tax, spending, and regulatory policies, a nation will experience rapid growth. He addressed the JFK and Reagan cuts, even crediting Clinton's cuts to the capital gains tax, all of which resulted in at least 4% growth for several years.</p>
<p>Regarding the specific plans, Kudlow first addressed Jeb&rsquo;s plan, which he applauded for lowering tax rates across the board. Although the former Florida governor presented a good tax plan, Kudlow referred to Trump&rsquo;s plan as &ldquo;Jeb Plus.&rdquo; Between the two plans, Kudlow deemed Trump&rsquo;s plan better as it advocated greater cuts to the corporate tax rate. Under the Trump plan, the corporate tax rate would be slashed to 15% down from the current 40%. This cut is even more substantial than Jeb's, which cuts the rate to 20%. Kudlow advocates the larger cut, as it puts the United States at an even greater advantage competing with China, which has a 25% rate. For this reason, Kudlow prefers Trump&rsquo;s plan, arguing if we cannot eliminate the corporate tax entirely, "go to 15%, be bold."</p>
<p class="p1">Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjY5MQ==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>I want to talk about these plans, because this stuff can get really thick and complicated for people. What do we need to know about Jeb&rsquo;s plan and what do we need to know about Trump&rsquo;s plan? Let&rsquo;s start with Jeb&rsquo;s plan. (4:10)</p>
<p><strong>Kudlow: </strong>They&rsquo;re both good. Jeb&rsquo;s plan is good, he lowers tax rates across the board, creates economic growth incentives, creates job incentives, make us very competitive internationally for a change. Lowering the corporate tax rate, I like his plan. I like Jeb&rsquo;s 4% economic growth target and, by the way, Trump does similar things. Look, one point I&rsquo;ve made over and over again against these nay-sayers is, after the JFK tax cuts, the economy grew by 5% for about 8 years. After the Reagan tax cut in the 80&rsquo;s, the economy grew by nearly 5% for a little over 7 years. And, even in the 90&rsquo;s, I know Clinton raised the income tax, but he also cut the capital gains tax, and with Gingrich they reformed welfare, which is like a tax cut. He grew by 4 &frac14; 4.5% for about 6 years. So, you can grow rapidly if you have the right tax policies and the right spending policies and the right regulatory policies. (4:27)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>I am under the impression, and correct me if I&rsquo;m wrong, that the Bush tax plan does away with the mortgage interest deduction for some Americans. Is that correct? (5:35)</p>
<p><strong>Kudlow: </strong>Yes, for upper income. (5:51)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>How do we define upper income? (5:55)</p>
<p>&nbsp;<strong>Kudlow: </strong>Well, I&rsquo;m not sure. I think your deduction is scaled down, and I think the cut off point on Bush is about 300,000, if I&rsquo;m not mistaken, give me a round number. Not terribly dissimilar from what I think Donald Trump is doing. (5:56)</p>
<p>&nbsp;<strong>Ingraham: </strong>He doesn&rsquo;t touch the mortgage interest. You should correct me on this, but, I believe Trump doesn&rsquo;t touch that. (6:22)</p>
<p><strong>Kudlow: </strong>I don&rsquo;t know, it&rsquo;s not specific. If I had to guess though, I think he&rsquo;s going to have the same scaling down effect. Which, by the way, is what a lot of us wanted. I think Jeb leaves the charitable deduction alone, Donald&rsquo;s plan is not quite as specific on that and some other things. That&rsquo;s why it&rsquo;s so hard to price it out, but I gotta say one thing about Trump&rsquo;s plan. I&rsquo;ve known Donald Trump for years, I like Donald Trump, he&rsquo;s treated me very well. I don&rsquo;t happen to agree with him on some issues, like trade, but Trump&rsquo;s plan is very good, extremely good. It&rsquo;s Jeb Plus, someone said it was Bush on steroids. (6:32)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham: </strong>So, if you have to describe which plan is better, whose plan is better? (7:29)</p>
<p>&nbsp;<strong>Kudlow: </strong>I&rsquo;ll give the nod to Trump for one big reason. He slashes the corporate tax rate to 15%, now it&rsquo;s 40%.&nbsp; Now, Jeb takes it down to 20%, but Donald takes it down to 15% and here&rsquo;s how I relate to this. We&rsquo;re all worried about China stealing our jobs and so forth, fair enough, I&rsquo;m no big fan of China&rsquo;s although I am a free trader, usually. But, at 15%, versus China&rsquo;s 25%, on corporate tax rates, the USA has a big advantage. And, I think Trump is right that a lot of money, capital, will flow to the United States from China and elsewhere if you have a 15% tax rate. It&rsquo;s a tremendous number. And, that is impossible to model. So, experts like the Tax Center Foundation, and I like those guys, but I don&rsquo;t think they have a good handle on just how much more money is going to come into the USA and therefore broadening our income and jobs and creating revenues. So, I really think Trump nailed that. I have for several years said 15% tax rate. My argument is eliminate the whole corporate tax, but if you can&rsquo;t, go to 15%, be bold. Jeb goes to 20%, give him credit, but Trump goes to 15%. He wins that round. (7:32)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</blockquote> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Kudlow:-Trumps-Tax-Plan-is-Jeb-Plus/796738212297795436.htmlStaff2015-09-30T16:58:00ZIt's Not That EarlyStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Its-Not-That-Early/-615935144470776701.html2015-09-30T03:58:00Z2015-09-30T03:58:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br>If you look at the <a href="http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/republican-candidate" target="_blank">British oddsmakers</a>, we're pretty much down to Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Donald Trump to win the GOP nomination. Carly Fiorina is the only other person with odds as low as 7 to 1. No one else has odds of better than 10 to 1. Cruz, Huckabee, Christie, and Rand Paul are all at around 25 to 1 or higher.<br /><br />How much longer are conservative pundits going to pretend that it's "early" and the race is "wide open"? <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Its-Not-That-Early/-615935144470776701.htmlStaff2015-09-30T03:58:00ZPelosi Attempts to Redefine CatholicismStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Pelosi-Attempts-to-Redefine-Catholicism/-975978252625860973.html2015-09-28T15:40:00Z2015-09-28T15:40:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Sunday, Jake Tapper pressed House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, to reconcile her Catholic beliefs with her unwavering support for abortion. Pelosi, mother of five, dodged the question, claiming the fight in Congress is about family planning, <a href="https://grabien.com/file.php?id=59222&amp;searchorder=date" target="_blank">saying</a>&ldquo;It&rsquo;s not up to us to decide that it&rsquo;s a beautiful, wonderful thing for other people, the sizing and timing of their &mdash; size and timing of their family is a personal decision, not a political decision. And so this issue is not just about terminating a pregnancy. It&rsquo;s about family planning and that is the fight in Congress. People don&rsquo;t know that&rdquo;</p>
<p>Pelosi, who had the opportunity to meet Pope Francis this week, spoke admirably of the Holy Father, claiming the experience was &ldquo;overwhelming&rdquo; and &ldquo;beyond any expectation.&rdquo; Perhaps the Minority Leader misunderstands Canon Law, specifically Canon Law<a href="http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/vatican-chief-justice-nancy-pelosi-must-be-denied-communion" target="_blank">15</a>, which says those Catholics who obstinately persevere &ldquo;in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.&rdquo; Or, perhaps she misread the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which reads, &ldquo;Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.&rdquo; Maybe Pelosi doesn&rsquo;t know that.</p>
<p>Ms. Pelosi may view the matter of abortion as political or personal, it ultimately makes no difference. As long as she continues advocating for abortion, she has no right to receive Catholic Communion, much less lecture the nation on its doctrine.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Pelosi-Attempts-to-Redefine-Catholicism/-975978252625860973.htmlStaff2015-09-28T15:40:00ZJeb's Wrong, 72% Won't Miss BoehnerStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Jebs-Wrong,-72-Wont-Miss-Boehner/-160629868950474814.html2015-09-28T15:22:00Z2015-09-28T15:22:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" />
<p style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">As House Speaker John Boehner announced his resignation from Congress, NBC and the Wall Street Journal released a </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT662_com_zimbra_url" class="Object"><a style="text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/poll-72-gop-voters-dissatisfied-boehner-mcconnell-n433731" target="_blank"><span style="text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">poll</span></a></span><span style="color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;"> revealing 72% of Republican primary voters were dissatisfied with the job performance of Boehner and McConnell. GOP voters have long been dissatisfied with the Republican leadership&rsquo;s ability to achieve goals; in fact, 44% of the primary voters labeled themselves as &ldquo;very&rdquo; dissatisfied with Boehner and McConnell.</span></p>
<br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" />
<p style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">Despite the polls, Jeb Bush </span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT663_com_zimbra_url" class="Object"><a style="text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/john-boehner-resignation-reaction" target="_blank"><span style="text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">said</span></a></span><span style="color: #000000; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;"> Boehner is leaving &ldquo;at the apex of his time,&rdquo; claiming &ldquo;I think people are going to miss him in the long run . . .&rdquo; The thunderous applause following Rubio&rsquo;s announcement of Boehner&rsquo;s resignation at the Values Voter Summit, however, did not signal Mr. Boehner would be missed at all. As Boehner tearfully resigned from his position in Congress, he said, &ldquo;My first job as Speaker is to protect the institution.&rdquo; Perhaps the next Speaker will not put the institution above all, but to fight for those who elected him.</span></p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Jebs-Wrong,-72-Wont-Miss-Boehner/-160629868950474814.htmlStaff2015-09-28T15:22:00ZGeorgetown Professor Warns About Negotiations with ChinaStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Georgetown-Professor-Warns-About-Negotiations-with-China/-592213230145478878.html2015-09-25T17:43:00Z2015-09-25T17:43:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on&nbsp;<em>The</em>&nbsp;<em>Laura Ingraham Show</em>, Prof. Arthur Dong, Professor of Strategy and Economics at Georgetown University, addressed President Xi&rsquo;s visit to the United States this week. Xi announced his government hopes, &ldquo;to see substantive steps by the U.S. to ease restrictions on exports to civilian high-tech items to China and create a level playing field for Chinese investment.&rdquo;</p>
<p>However, Dong was skeptical about Xi&rsquo;s promise of a &ldquo;level playing field,&rdquo; warning corporate leaders at American technology companies to be &ldquo;extremely careful about exactly what they&rsquo;re willing to give up to get a piece of the China market.&rdquo; Despite the Chinese president&rsquo;s optimistic tone, the American companies, according to Dong, have no assurance of the openness of the protection of their intellectual property. China may be promising equal footing in negotiations, but Dong said, &ldquo;<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjY2NQ==" target="_blank">If there is access [to the China market] it is not going to be free and unlimited&hellip;. They are going to be required to do certain things to gain access to the market place.</a>&rdquo;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Georgetown-Professor-Warns-About-Negotiations-with-China/-592213230145478878.htmlStaff2015-09-25T17:43:00ZHalperin: Jeb Has No Support; Challenges Rep. Candidates to Get SpecificStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Halperin:-Jeb-Has-No-Support;-Challenges-Rep.-Candidates-to-Get-Specific/165679286271543856.html2015-09-23T19:36:00Z2015-09-23T19:36:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p class="p1">On today&rsquo;s program, Mark Halperin, managing editor for Bloomberg, discussed the shockingly low support for the Establishment favorite, Jeb Bush. Halperin pointed to issues such as Bush&rsquo;s support for Common Core and comprehensive immigration reform that have tainted his reputation with Republican voters; however, he maintained the legacy problem may be &ldquo;too big a burden for him to deal with.&rdquo; Ingraham mentioned that support for Jeb is so low that even some of the big fundraisers for George W. Bush are unwilling to endorse his brother. Despite Jeb&rsquo;s immense funding, Halperin was hesitant to guarantee the former Florida governor would secure the nomination, claiming, &ldquo;if you&rsquo;re selling a product people don&rsquo;t want, it doesn&rsquo;t matter how much TV time you have.&rdquo;</p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">Halperin also offered advice to other GOP candidates, suggesting the candidate who puts forward one or two specific things they will do to improve the lives of the middle class will rise astronomically in the polls.</span></p>
<p class="p1">Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="http://mp3play.noxsolutions.com/laura/mp3/laura_092315_sublog.mp3" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1"><strong>Halperin:&nbsp;</strong>I think people who think they are going to somehow come back, those Establishment candidates, they&rsquo;re going to somehow come back just through the debates, I think it&rsquo;s a mistake. Particularly, because, again, remember there&rsquo;s only one debate in Iowa, one debate in New Hampshire, and while those people pay attention to the other debates, you&rsquo;re going to have to do more than that. You&rsquo;re going to have to have a message, you&rsquo;re going to have to have effective TV advertising, and you&rsquo;re going to have to figure out how to be in the news cycle every day to driving your message and not being overwhelmed by Trump and Carson. (2:45)</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1"><strong>Halperin:&nbsp;</strong>With all due respect, this cycle saying, last time, or usually, or historically, may not do it. I think you and I agree, if you use your head and you do look at history, somehow Jeb Bush will find his way to the nomination. But, more and more, my gut says, the country is not going to have a Bush and Clinton as the two. One of the two of them isn&rsquo;t going to make it, that&rsquo;s just my gut based on the fierce resistance to the legacy candidates. I think that has shaped the environment in a way that has been helpful to Trump and to Carson and to Fiorina. &nbsp;(4:50)</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1"><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>It is stunning to me how little support for Jeb there is, even among the people who really were big fundraisers for George W. Bush and liked George W. Bush. There is literally zero appetite for Jeb Bush as the nominee, as far as I can tell, other than maybe Haley Barbour and those people, but just regular folks who have done really well, they&rsquo;re like this is not working, this dog does not hunt. (5:34)</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1"><strong>Halperin:&nbsp;</strong>It&rsquo;s been striking to me for a year. And, the accumulation of the kind of people who say that, you know, 30-year-old Republican Hill aides who for their whole lives have been in the Republican Establishment, no use for Jeb Bush. It&rsquo;s like he has no support. He certainly has support from donors, but people talk about his support for Common Core, his support for comprehensive immigration reform, people talked about his style. The Bush problem, the legacy problem, it may be too big a burden for him to deal with. Right now, they&rsquo;re on television with millions of dollars of ads in Iowa and New Hampshire, South Carolina. But, if you&rsquo;re selling a product people don&rsquo;t want, it doesn&rsquo;t matter how much TV time you have. As I said, my head tells me he&rsquo;s going to be in the mix here, that he&rsquo;s going to at least get to the finals. And, if past is correct he should be the nominee. But, the thing you cited, that the kind of people who in the past would have been for the Bush, who are not, is a very cautionary thing for his campaign as they try to figure out how to navigate this field. (6:08)</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1"><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>Who benefits the most from Walker dropping out? (7:16)</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1"><strong>Halperin:&nbsp;</strong>Rubio does, if you want a new face, a face of the new generation as your nominee, and you&rsquo;re in the Establishment, you&rsquo;ve got one choice now. I think on the donor level, on the activist level&hellip; Rubio needs to find a state where he can win&hellip;It may be Iowa. There&rsquo;s a lot of good will for him there and the Walker people I&rsquo;ve talked to since the governor got out are attracted to Rubio. Let&rsquo;s see if he can step up and make the investment in Iowa. He&rsquo;s made somewhat of an investment there, but not a full on investment. But, he&rsquo;s got to find a place to win and perhaps it will be there. (7:38)</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1"><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>I think that&rsquo;s the thing that&rsquo;s missing from almost all these Republican candidates, which is, what are one or two things you&rsquo;re specifically for that would make the lives of middle class people better. And, if somebody can come up with that I think their chances of being the nominee would rise astronomically. Sen. Rubio&rsquo;s tax plan, to me, isn&rsquo;t going to do that for him. (10:13)</span></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</blockquote> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Halperin:-Jeb-Has-No-Support;-Challenges-Rep.-Candidates-to-Get-Specific/165679286271543856.htmlStaff2015-09-23T19:36:00ZFiorina: Shame on Disney, Shame on CongressStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Fiorina:-Shame-on-Disney,-Shame-on-Congress/-159911196178516020.html2015-09-23T18:52:00Z2015-09-23T18:52:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on&nbsp;<em>The Laura Ingraham Show,</em>&nbsp;presidential candidate Carly Fiorina defended her earlier statement, &ldquo;There is no job that is America&rsquo;s God given right anymore.&rdquo; She described the modern world as one where ideas, jobs, and money can travel virtually anywhere across the globe, forcing the United States to &ldquo;fight for every job.&rdquo; Fiorina fiercely defended small businesses, which, despite innovating at seven times the rate of big business, are being destroyed by government policies. In response to Disney&rsquo;s decision to replace qualified Americans with foreign workers, Fiorina said, &ldquo;Shame on them. We should never support that kind of policy, ever.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Ingraham asked Fiorina whether her ideology aligned more closely with Jeff Sessions or Mitch McConnell, which the candidate failed to answer. However, she did slam the Establishment yet again, expressing disappointment that after many Americans worked hard to deliver historic majorities in the House and regain a Republican majority in the Senate, there has been a massive lack of leadership on, for example, the REINS Act, defunding Planned Parenthood, and, of course, the controversial Iranian deal.</p>
<p>Partial Transcript:<strong> [<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjYzOQ==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>Are you more off a Jeff Sessions Republican or a Mitch McConnell Republican? (3:46)</p>
<p><strong>Fiorina:&nbsp;</strong>Well, first of all, I&rsquo;m in South Carolina in the moment, by the way, where the crowd was huge and going on to Iowa. I don&rsquo;t know how anyone could call me an insider, unless they&rsquo;re prepared to call Donald Trump and Ben Carson insiders as well, since I&rsquo;ve never held a job in office. It&rsquo;s also true, Laura, as you well know, we have had this conversation many times, I&rsquo;ve been very clear and quite pointed in my criticism of Republican leadership. Many of us worked very hard to deliver historic majorities in the House and to restore a Republican majority in the Senate and I don&rsquo;t see leadership producing results. There are some very clear things I think they can and should be doing that I&rsquo;ve been specific about. They ought to pass the REINS Act, which gives Congress the ability to actually look at regulations before they&rsquo;re passed, they ought to defund Planned Parenthood, they actually ought to pass a border security bill and force the president to veto it if he wants, there are a set of things that ought to happen here and unfortunately they are not happening. I also wonder, honestly, as this Iranian deal passes over the objections of the vast majority of the American people, why Republican leadership didn&rsquo;t at least consider using the nuclear option, in terms of the process option, not the weapon. Unfortunate term. The nuclear option to stop the approval of that deal. (3:51)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>So, Jeff Sessions or Mitch McConnell? You&rsquo;re a straight talker, so which one are you closer to? (5:20)</p>
<p><strong>Fiorina:&nbsp;</strong>Well, I don&rsquo;t like to be pigeon holed with anyone, I&rsquo;m Carly Fiorina. And, I&rsquo;ve been very clear. . . (5:23)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>Nobody likes to be pigeon holed, but that&rsquo;s the way of the world. (5:30)</p>
<p><strong>Fiorina:&nbsp;</strong>Well, no it isn&rsquo;t, it doesn&rsquo;t have to be. It really doesn&rsquo;t have to be. I&rsquo;m Carly Fiorina, I&rsquo;ve been incredibly specific about everything that I believe. (5:34)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>In these comments, you&rsquo;re quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle, you basically said at some point, this was obviously when you were at HP, you said, &ldquo;There&rsquo;s no job that is America&rsquo;s god given right anymore.&rdquo; And, that triggered a really strong reaction. Do you still stand by those comments? (6:41)</p>
<p><strong>Fiorina:&nbsp;</strong>Of course, Laura. I&rsquo;ve said all the time. We have to fight for every job. We have to fight for every job. The realities of the 21<sup>st</sup>&nbsp;century are, anybody can go anywhere, any job can go anywhere, money can go anywhere, ideas can go anywhere. So, we have to fight for every job. We have to fight for every idea. And, we&rsquo;re not fighting for them. In fact, the policies that mostly Democrats, but sadly in most cases Republicans as well, haveput in place are asking us to fight with both hands behind our backs. We&rsquo;re destroying the small businesses that innovate at seven times the rate of big businesses. We have a regulatory policy and a tax policy that drives business out of this country, as well as citizens out of this country. We&rsquo;re doing all of these things in denial of reality. Reality is we fight for every job. (7:07)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>That sounds good, fight for every job. But, in practice, we have major technology companies &ndash; as you know, they&rsquo;re hosting the Indian prime minister over at Facebook in the next couple weeks, the Chinese president in California. They pursue a very nationalistic economic policy in their countries. &nbsp;(8:03)</p>
<p><strong>Fiorina:&nbsp;</strong>What we have to do, let me talk specifically about two things that HP did while I was there. One, we went into disadvantaged communities and we mentored, sponsored high school students to become STEM students in college. We provided them with internships, scholarships, jobs. In other words, we have to create. We can&rsquo;t leave a single child behind in this nation. And, our education system is failing, and more big programs out of Washingotn D.C. aren&rsquo;t going to fix it. Secondly, we have to retrain Americans. So, Democrats love to talk about rebuilding America, we have to retrain Americans. There&rsquo;s no excuse, there&rsquo;s no reason a 40 or 50 year old . . . (8:26)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>My point is my brother works at MIT, we have lots of friends at Cal Tech, Stanford, these guys graduate, these young women graduate, competing with a Chinese worker that HP or Facebook or any of these other guys would rather have come in at 30% of the price, that&rsquo;s the rub right? That&rsquo;s why you want all these big high tech CEOs, they&rsquo;re like we need more guest workers, not because there aren&rsquo;t Americans who aren&rsquo;t really smart engineers graduating from top schools, but because they can cut their labor costs by 30-40% in some cases. Do you support that? (9:14)</p>
<p><strong>Fiorina:&nbsp;</strong>Of course I don&rsquo;t support it. And, I can&rsquo;t talk to what Facebook is doing or did, I can only tell you what I did as a CEO at HP. We hired loads of people, from MIT and Cal Tech, the issue was not can we replace highly qualified Americans with less expensive Chiense. That&rsquo;s not what we were doing, so I know that gets talked about a lot, and perhaps some companies are doing that. I read a horrible article about Disney doing that, I don&rsquo;t know if it&rsquo;s true or not&hellip; (9:46)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>It is true. (10:15)</p>
<p><strong></strong></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</blockquote> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Fiorina:-Shame-on-Disney,-Shame-on-Congress/-159911196178516020.htmlStaff2015-09-23T18:52:00ZSenate Dems Block 20 Week Abortion Ban Bill; Hillary Opposes Any LimitsStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Senate-Dems-Block-20-Week-Abortion-Ban-Bill;-Hillary-Opposes-Any-Limits/531604975369819051.html2015-09-22T21:05:00Z2015-09-22T21:05:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p class="p1"><span class="s1">This morning, Senate Democrats&nbsp;<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/22/abortion-bill-20-weeks-senate-republicans-democrats" target="_blank"><span class="s2">blocked</span></a>&nbsp;a bill set to ban abortions from being conducted on fetuses after 20 weeks. The failure of the motion (54-42) did not come as a surprise. Following the vote, Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, who has taken heat for failing to stand up to defund Planned Parenthood, one of America&rsquo;s biggest abortion providers, said, &ldquo;We should at least be able to agree that if an unborn child has reached the point where he or she can feel pain, that child&rsquo;s life deserves protection.&rdquo;</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">Hillary Clinton addressed the bill&nbsp;Sunday&nbsp;on NBC&rsquo;s Face the Nation, claiming that, despite evidence that at 20 weeks a fetus can feel pain, claiming the vote &ldquo;gets back to whether you respect a woman&rsquo;s right to choose or not.&rdquo; In fact, the Democratic frontrunner went as far as to say, &ldquo;I think that the kind of late term abortions that take place are because of medical necessity . . .I would hate to see the government interfering with that decision.&rdquo;</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">Despite controversy over Fiorina&rsquo;s remarks, she hit the nail on the head in last week&rsquo;s debate when she stated the funding over Planned Parenthood is &ldquo;about the character of our nation.&rdquo; Although the Senate Democrats failed to pass legislation today, the fight to protect the unborn is far from over. With just over a week until government funding is set to expire, conservative Republicans are still calling on colleagues to block any funding bill that does not strip federal funding of Planned Parenthood, standing for the &ldquo;character&rdquo; of the United States.</span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Senate-Dems-Block-20-Week-Abortion-Ban-Bill;-Hillary-Opposes-Any-Limits/531604975369819051.htmlStaff2015-09-22T21:05:00ZSabato: No Law of the Universe Commands an Establishment WinStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Sabato:-No-Law-of-the-Universe-Commands-an-Establishment-Win/750183785897929037.html2015-09-22T14:54:00Z2015-09-22T14:54:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Yesterday on&nbsp;<em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, Prof. Larry Sabato, Director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, discussed the role of the Establishment in determining the 2016 GOP nominee. He pointed out that after the CNN debate last Wednesday, the Establishment favorite Jeb Bush did not move at all, remaining in the single digits. Sabato credits much of the lack of enthusiasm towards Jeb to the American hesitancy to support dynastic politics; the idea of having three presidents from the same nuclear family does not, according to the professor, send a positive message about the state of American democracy.</p>
<p>Ingraham pointed out that despite the lack of enthusiasm for Jeb, he remains the favorite to be the nominee. Sabato blamed history for this discrepancy, suggesting people are hesitant to believe the Republican Party will listen to the base. Jeb&rsquo;s campaign, despite low poll numbers, has the support of the Establishment and more money than virtually any other candidate; therefore, voters anticipate the Party will &ldquo;manipulate the system and manipulate the rules&rdquo; as they did for Romney and McCain. However, Sabato maintained a degree of optimism, concluding, &ldquo;there is no physical law of the universe that commands the Establishment will always win.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript [<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjYyNQ==" target="_blank"><strong>LISTEN</strong></a>]</p>
<p>***</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Sabato:&nbsp;</strong>Bush did not move at all after that debate. Did not move at all. Still in single digits. (4:32)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>So, you wrote this book on what happened in 2014, which I think a lot of people described as the Establishment came roaring back. They weren&rsquo;t about to have really embarrassing defeats of people like Lamar Alexander or Thad Cochran. So, they brought in the big guns at the Chamber of Commerce and did some funny business down there with the flyers and the Chris McDaniels race in Mississippi and they won handily. Yet, we see in this election, of course, people say the rise of the outsiders, but in the end, I mean, look at these bookies over in Europe. We just did a big piece on LifeZette about look at what the bookies are doing. Jeb Bush is a 7-4 favorite to be the nominee, the top favorite, has been for two and a half months, despite all these polls. (4:33)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Sabato:&nbsp;</strong>The reason is because they&rsquo;re looking to history, because the establishment normally gets what it wants because it has the heavy concentration and money and the ability to manipulate the system and manipulate the rules where it can. And, that&rsquo;s their theory. They&rsquo;ve got $120 million in the bank, who knows how much they really have now, they&rsquo;ve been collecting since the last report, so he&rsquo;s got more money than probably everyone else put together, put aside Trump&rsquo;s private fortune. We still don&rsquo;t know how much he&rsquo;ll really spend, he says $100 million, we&rsquo;ll see. So, you look at, also, the past results. The Republican base really didn&rsquo;t want Romney, but the establishment did. They picked him and they helped to get him installed. McCain in 2008, the very same way. For that matter, it worked for George W. Bush in 2000. So, given the history of how the Republican Party works and how the Establishment installs candidates for president, it&rsquo;s easy to see why they came up with those odds. But, as people have reminded me, because I cite history so much, just because something has always happened doesn&rsquo;t mean it&rsquo;ll happen in the future. There is no physical law of the universe that commands that the Establishment will always win. (5:25)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>For all of the folks out there who feel like Jeb Bush is at 8%, and no one I know wants Jeb Bus to be the nominee, except a coupe of really rich people. I just don&rsquo;t know anyone, I don&rsquo;t meet anybody out there on the trail, just regular grass roots people who are like, oh my gosh, I&rsquo;m so excited Jeb Bush is coming to speak. Literally, I&rsquo;ve never heard that. Never, not once. And, I&rsquo;m all over the country. (6:44)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Sabato:&nbsp;</strong>I haven&rsquo;t either, but Laura remember. It&rsquo;s a combination of things for Bush that are dragging him down, and may keep him from getting the nomination, we&rsquo;ll have to see. There&rsquo;s a non-partisan, non ideological response to Bush that I think is hurting him more than anything else. When people think about it, they say do you really want the 41<sup>st</sup>, 43<sup>rd</sup>, and 45<sup>th</sup>presidents of the United States to all be from the same nuclear family? What signal does that send to the world? What does it suggest about the nature of American democracy? The signal is not good. That&rsquo;s non-partisan. People don&rsquo;t like the idea of dynasty, whether Democratic and Republican. And, then you get into the actual positions he takes and abilities as a campaigner, which are modest. (7:05)</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">&nbsp;</span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><strong>&nbsp;</strong></span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Sabato:-No-Law-of-the-Universe-Commands-an-Establishment-Win/750183785897929037.htmlStaff2015-09-22T14:54:00ZHuckabee: Trump Controversy is "Much Ado About Nothing"Staffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Huckabee:-Trump-Controversy-is-Much-Ado-About-Nothing/-414585966227543262.html2015-09-18T15:19:00Z2015-09-18T15:19:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR), discussed his performance in&nbsp;Wednesday&nbsp;night&rsquo;s three hour GOP debate, in which he spoke for a mere three minutes. On the show, Huckabee posed a question, which he claims is critical to this presidential election - what do you think the power of the executive is, and how should it coordinate with the other branches? According to the presidential candidate, the country&rsquo;s system of checks and balances has failed and, if not restored, the United States will crumble from within.</p>
<p>Huckabee reacted to the current media attacks on Trump, who is under fire for not denouncing statements by a questioner who claimed Obama is a Muslim, and not an American. Huckabee dismissed the controversy as &ldquo;much ado about nothing.&rdquo; According to the former governor, in these situations the focus ought to be on the interrupter, not the person on stage.</p>
<p>Partial Transcript [<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjYwOQ==" target="_blank"><strong>LISTEN</strong></a>]</p>
<p>***</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>Any reaction to the pig pile on Trump today about this? (1:20)</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><strong>Huckabee:&nbsp;</strong>Well, first of all, when you&rsquo;re at the podium and you&rsquo;re speaking and you&rsquo;ve got crowd noise and speaker noise, and if you&rsquo;re like me and have a little bit of a hearing loss because of all the years of playing rock music too loud and shooting shot guns, you sometimes don&rsquo;t&rsquo; even hear it. And, when you do, then you make a split second decision as to whether you acknowledge it, ignore it, or move on. And, frankly, I think we ought to be judging the behavior of the interrupter, not the behavior of the person on the stage. If the person gets a legitimate question and they&rsquo;re snarky and they&rsquo;re mean, ok, that&rsquo;s a fair point. But, this is much ado about nothing. The media, it&rsquo;s such an interesting thing, they want to do everything they can to destroy Trump. But, on the other hand, between August 24 and September 4, CNN in prime time gave Trump 580 minutes. I have 6 seconds in a 2 week period mentioned on CNN. (1:22)</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">&nbsp;</span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><strong>&nbsp;</strong></span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Huckabee:-Trump-Controversy-is-Much-Ado-About-Nothing/-414585966227543262.htmlStaff2015-09-18T15:19:00ZYork: Establishment Candidates Jeb & Hillary Fail to Gather CrowdsStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/York:-Establishment-Candidates-Jeb--Hillary-Fail-to-Gather-Crowds/265943765139365580.html2015-09-18T14:56:00Z2015-09-18T14:56:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on&nbsp;<em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, Byron York,&nbsp;Chief Political Correspondent for the Washington Examiner, discussed the failure of the establishment favorites, Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton, to attract crowds. Yesterday at a rally in Los Vegas, David Wiegel, of the Washington Post, took photos showing a pathetically small crowd. In fact, the crowd was so small, York offered to &ldquo;be generous and call it a half empty room.&rdquo; At the same time, York pointed out Hillary Clinton had empty seats at her recent rally as well, suggesting the establishment has a long way to go if they intend to win, in either party.</p>
<p>York also reflected&nbsp;on Wednesday&nbsp;night&rsquo;s GOP debate, in which a discussion of the economy and jobs was &ldquo;glaringly absent.&rdquo; York was baffled that the moderators, who he criticized for allowing candidates to &ldquo;meander wherever they wanted,&rdquo; asked the candidates about vaccines and their preferred code name, but neglected to ask about the number one issue in the United States.</p>
<p>Partial Transcript [<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjYwNw==" target="_blank"><strong>LISTEN</strong></a>]</p>
<p>***</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>York:&nbsp;</strong>&nbsp;I have a slightly different perspective on this; you did have this back and forth between Trump and Fiorina over their relative business histories. And, I kind of thought the person who got the best of it was Chris Christie, who jumped in after a while, a long time actually, and said I&rsquo;m glad you guys had great career, but can we talk about the middle class. And, the one thing that was glaringly absent from this debate, and I think it&rsquo;s mostly the fault of the moderators, was much talk about economy and jobs. Which, I have to tell you, I&rsquo;m about to write a piece about this, because I went back and looked at this whole transcript. They asked about 35 questions, and of course they let the candidates meander wherever they wanted to a lot of the time, and none of the questions were about jobs and the economy. I mean, they asked about vaccines? It&rsquo;s the number one issue and it has been for years. So, yes, national security is important and should be part of any Republican debate, but, vaccines? Your secret service code name? It was astonishing. With the exception of Christie there, there was an opportunity for a Republican candidate to come out and say wait a minute, are you missing something? And, give a statement on the economy. That was the missing part of this debate. (5:42)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham:</strong>&nbsp;I can say David Weigel, of the Washington Post, I think had the most interesting photos of the late afternoon yesterday. He was at the post-debate Jeb Bush rally, and he posted several photos of this rally. There were maybe two dozen people at this rally&hellip; that was embarrassing! (12:08)</p>
<p><strong>York:&nbsp;</strong>Let&rsquo;s call it a half empty room. Let&rsquo;s be generous and call it a half empty room . . . It was in Los Vegas. &nbsp;(12:33)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>How do you not get a crowd in Vegas? (12:43)</p>
<p><strong>York:&nbsp;</strong>I think it was interesting, to make it a little broader than Jeb, yesterday, we saw not only that, but also from Ed Henry at Fox at a Hillary Clinton rally, we saw empty seats there. So, yesterday we saw those two establishment choices, Bush and Clinton, fail to fill a room in important states. (12:44)</p>
<p><strong>York:&nbsp;</strong>&nbsp;I cannot tell you how strong the belief is among the strategists at the top campaigns, including the Bush campaign but not limited to the Bush campaign, how strong the belief is that the Trump momentum will go away, that the fever will break, and Trump will just go away somehow. That may be true, but they just have this belief. And, as a matter of fact, there was a great line, you remember Stuart Stevens, he was the strategist for the Romney campaign. He&rsquo;s not in a campaign this time, but he said the other day, &ldquo;If Trump wins, everything we know about politics is wrong.&rdquo; So, I think basically they all believe the laws of gravity as they see it will reassert themselves and the world will become right again and Trump will go away. Right now it&rsquo;s just an act of faith. It may be true, I&rsquo;m not saying it&rsquo;s not true. But, right now they just have this strong belief. So, they&rsquo;re looking for any signs to confirm this belief they are bringing to the race. (14:05)</p>
</blockquote>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">&nbsp;</span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><strong>&nbsp;</strong></span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/York:-Establishment-Candidates-Jeb--Hillary-Fail-to-Gather-Crowds/265943765139365580.htmlStaff2015-09-18T14:56:00ZWalker: CNN Debate was a 'Cage Match' Designed for RatingsStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Walker:-CNN-Debate-was-a-Cage-Match-Designed-for-Ratings/651646130569487151.html2015-09-17T16:05:00Z2015-09-17T16:05:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br>On today&rsquo;s program, Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) reflected on last night&rsquo;s GOP debate, which he said was a &ldquo;catch match&rdquo; intended to appeal to Donald Trump&rsquo;s bombastic side. Walker was given a meager eight minutes and twenty-eight seconds to speak, compared to Donald Trump, who spoke for 18 minutes. Walker said the debate was staged like a &ldquo;cage match&rdquo; driven by ratings, which he called a &ldquo;disservice to the American people.&rdquo; According to Walker, the American people want to hear about the substantive issues; looking towards the next debate, the Wisconsin governor said he hopes to address Obamacare, energy, economy, and many other real policy issues in future debates. <br /><br /> Walker also responded to President Obama&rsquo;s decision to allow 10,000 Syrian refugees to enter the United States. He vehemently disagreed with this decision for two reasons; firstly, Walker said this does not address the root of the problem. However, he was most passionate about the security risks, saying the &ldquo;last thing we need is a whole new wave of people coming in that we cannot guarantee are not terrorists.&rdquo;
<p>Partial Transcript [<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjU5Nw==" target="_blank"><strong>LISTEN</strong></a>]</p>
<p>***</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>First of all, you got like eight minutes and twenty seconds and Trump got 18 minutes. (3:21)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&nbsp;</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Walker:&nbsp;</strong>And, I had to fight for that. Oh my goodness, although, it&rsquo;s quality. It&rsquo;s the quality of the time you use, and obviously you played the clip there, and I said at one point, come on, this was all set up to be about tit-for-tat with Trump on just about everything out there. The bottom line is people want to talk about real issues that I talked about. We made a mistake in 2008 when we put an apprentice in the White House, someone who didn&rsquo;t know who they were or where they were going, we&rsquo;ve seen the big mistake that&rsquo;s been. I think there&rsquo;s a cautionary out there that we don&rsquo;t need to send another apprentice in there, we need to send someone who&rsquo;s actually been tested. If you want to shake Washington up, if you&rsquo;re going to hire, think of all the CEO&rsquo;s on the stage, if they were going to hire someone to take over a company for them, they&rsquo;d want to hire somebody that had done a good job taking those kinds of challenges on and that&rsquo;s our case. That&rsquo;s what we&rsquo;ve done. (3:30)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&nbsp;</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>What do you make of CNN&rsquo;s approach here in this debate? You&rsquo;re standing up there and the questions are Donald Trump said, and two weeks ago Donald Trump did, and he remarked. Or, it was Gov. Walker, Kasich said this, how do you react. I didn&rsquo;t understand that whole approach to the debate. I thought it was a mish mash of questions mostly designed to make Republicans look bad, in my view. (4:20)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&nbsp;</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Walker:&nbsp;</strong>It was like a cage match, it was basically saying, okay, throw out something and the two of you have to go attack each other on this as opposed to saying, what&rsquo;s your plan for health care, what&rsquo;s your plan for the economy, what&rsquo;s your plan for energy independence, what&rsquo;s your plan? I have no problem people probing, that&rsquo;s why I go on these shows like yours. I want people to push me hard on the issues I have. But, the format was bizarre. I was talking to a number of the candidates afterwards, Dr. Carson and I were talking, it was just an unusual format. But, it was driven by ratings. I think they wanted to get as many tit-for-tats in with Trump, and that&rsquo;s what they did. And, in the end I think it&rsquo;s a disservice to the American people. They want to hear where you stand on the issues. I would have loved to have talked more about our plan, for example, to get rid of Obamacare on day one. We actually have a plan and it starts with ordering Congress to live by the same rules as everybody else and truly repealing Obamacare. Well, we got a little bit of that in there, but I hope the upcoming debates there will be more talk about that. There will be more talk about how we tap into our energy supplies, to grow the economy, about what we do to get government out of our lives and put it back in the hands of the states. And, more importantly, back in our hands. There&rsquo;s a lot we could be talking abut, that I hope we will get to. (5:01)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&nbsp;</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>What do you think about this refugee crisis in Europe? I can&rsquo;t believe that didn&rsquo;t even get raised last night by anybody, none of you and none of the questions. (10:05)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&nbsp;</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Walker:&nbsp;</strong>I thought they were headed there in one question, but then they jumped off it again. It, one, I, obviously just as a human being feel horrible for the people and individuals involved in this. But, this is just a typical example of this president, and really, of the Obama-Clinton doctrine, not working. And, that is, they created this mess when the president drew a red line in the sand and allowed it to be crossed. They created this mess when they pulled out of Iraq too early without having a clear plan and allowed the vacuum that created this, that ISIS has filled out there. (10:14)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&nbsp;</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>You know what my question is though, governor. We&rsquo;ve heard that from you and I understand those points, but do you think we should be taking in 10,000 refugees overwhelmingly Muslim. (10:47)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&nbsp;</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Walker:&nbsp;</strong>No, no, that&rsquo;s the point I was getting at is we should not be, because that&rsquo;s addressing the symptoms and not the problem. And, by the way, the national media largely overlooks this when they act as though we are doing nothing. We&rsquo;ve taken in the past year or so some 70,000 refugees and permanently settled them. Many of whom are from Syria. We spent $4 billion, that&rsquo;s billion with a &lsquo;b,&rsquo; $4 billion on humanitarian aid to help with the Syrian crisis out there. America has steppe dup big time on this. But, the last thing we should be doing is just taking a whole wave. For two reasons, one because we aren&rsquo;t addressing the problem. And, the problem is both ISIS and Assad, which we need to step up and actually deal with. And, two, with this massive influx of people coming in without a clear policy, how can the president of the United States not be absolutely certain that some of the people coming in through the refugees aren&rsquo;t going to be aligned with ISIS or Al Qaeda or other groups out there. The last thing we need is a whole new wave of people coming in that we cannot guarantee are not terrorists. (10:56)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">&nbsp;</span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><strong>&nbsp;</strong></span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Walker:-CNN-Debate-was-a-Cage-Match-Designed-for-Ratings/651646130569487151.htmlStaff2015-09-17T16:05:00ZInsider Admits Wall Street Would Vote Hillary Over TrumpStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Insider-Admits-Wall-Street-Would-Vote-Hillary-Over-Trump/-259088045327767254.html2015-09-17T15:10:00Z2015-09-17T15:10:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT351_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">Today</span> on the Laura Ingraham Show, Greg Valliere, Chief Political Strategist at the Potomac Research Group, compared the business background of two Republican favorites, Carly Fiorina and Donald Trump. Valliere addressed Wall Street&rsquo;s views towards Donald Trump, saying they are beginning to really worry about a Trump candidacy. Trump is, according to Valliere, viewed as a &ldquo;class traitor&rdquo; to the hedge fund people as he touts a flat tax and tax hikes for Wall Street. The strategist admitted Wall Street will be &ldquo;outright hostile&rdquo; to a Trump candidacy, asserting they would &ldquo;absolutely&rdquo; vote for Hillary instead.
<p>Partial Transcript [<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjU5NQ==" target="_blank"><strong>LISTEN</strong></a>]</p>
<p>***</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>Tell us about the difference between Carly Fiorina&rsquo;s business background and Trump&rsquo;s background. (4:44) <br /></span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><strong>Valliere:&nbsp;</strong>Sure, well, I work in the world of finance. My clients are big institutional investors, so my sense is that Carly Fiorina would fit in just fine. And, one of your previous callers mentioned that she and Bush have contacts going back. I think a lot of Wall Street is beginning to really worry about Trump, that he is a class traitor. He&rsquo;s talking about flat tax and how Wall Street hedge fund people should be forced to pay more taxes. I understand what he&rsquo;s saying, but an awful lot of people on Wall Street are starting to think, is this Donald Trump or Elizabeth Warren? Is Trump in the right party if he&rsquo;s saying this kind of stuff? (4:48) <br /></span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>What you just said is music to the ears of a lot of our listeners who think that, look, conservatism isn&rsquo;t about developing and nurturing a country where there&rsquo;s some really, really rich people who do really well and some really, really poor people who get government assistance and then people in the middle who are told you have to work more hours for less pay. That&rsquo;s not a country that&rsquo;s going to survive for very long, and so I think Trump is absolutely tapping into the fact that Wall Street really didn&rsquo;t get penalized after the big crash. In fact, the banks got bigger, they got more powerful. Pretty much, no one went to jail. Meanwhile, middle income earners their lives aren&rsquo;t getting any better. I understand you represent a lot of these big massive billion dollars institutions, but I think if Republicans think there&rsquo;s going to be a lot of empathy or sympathy for Wall Street, I mean, we can go back and look at the Romney loss to see how the people reacted to that. (5:30) <br /></span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><strong>Valliere:&nbsp;</strong>It&rsquo;s more than Wall Street just being ambivalent. I think Wall Street will be outright hostile to a Trump candidacy&hellip; (6:28) <br /></span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>They&rsquo;ll vote for Hillary, admit it. (6:37) <br /></span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><strong>Valliere:&nbsp;</strong>Yeah, I agree. I agree. You&rsquo;re absolutely right. (6:42)</span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Insider-Admits-Wall-Street-Would-Vote-Hillary-Over-Trump/-259088045327767254.htmlStaff2015-09-17T15:10:00ZForbes Predicts Substantive GOP DebateStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Forbes-Predicts-Substantive-GOP-Debate/498363024304303360.html2015-09-16T17:50:00Z2015-09-16T17:50:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on <em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, Steve Forbes, Chairman &amp; Editor in Chief of Forbes Media, shared his predictions for the second GOP debate, which will take place tonight on CNN. Forbes speculated that this debate will not be a &ldquo;pig pile&rdquo; on Donald Trump; instead, candidates will be feeling immense pressure to breakthrough, meaning viewers may finally begin hearing substantive policy responses. Forbes said, &ldquo;When people complain that they can&rsquo;t be heard because of Trump, a hint, you have to have something to say.&rdquo; He predicts Jeb and Sen. Paul will aggressively push to discuss their tax plans, which did not come up during the first FOX debate.</p>
<p>Forbes also criticized the Republican establishment for a &ldquo;lack of imagination&rdquo; in thwarting the Democratic agenda. Forbes assessed the root of America&rsquo;s frustration, referencing Reagan&rsquo;s 1981 inaugural address, in which he referred to the &ldquo;consent of the governed.&rdquo; According to Forbes, the people in this country feel betrayed by the president who, &ldquo;if he doesn&rsquo;t get the national legislation to go wrong, issues the decree like Louis the 14th.&rdquo; And, ultimately, Forbes slammed the Republicans who continuously react &ldquo;a day late and a dollar short&rdquo; to policies on Capitol Hill.</p>
<p>***</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Forbes: </strong>I don&rsquo;t think it&rsquo;s going to be, certainly among the candidates, most of them are going to try and pile up on Donald Trump. That just plays right into him, just feeds his persona as the brave outsider and all the others who are part of the establishment. What I think you&rsquo;re going to see tonight is, one, the other candidates know they have to breakthrough in coming out of that debate with people having an idea of what they stand for. When people complain that they can&rsquo;t be heard because of Trump, a hint, you have to have something to say. So I think they're going to be less deferential to the moderators tonight, than they were in the first debate, and they&rsquo;re going to try to get out their agendas whether it&rsquo;s tax, social security, healthcare. They know that if they don&rsquo;t start to make a breakthrough tonight, they&rsquo;re going to go the way of Gov. Rick Perry. You&rsquo;re going to see much more aggression on the part of the panelists, Bush will be pushing his tax plan, Rand Paul who&rsquo;s got a very interesting flat tax plan, you never knew it from the first debate, he&rsquo;ll be more aggressive on it. I think you&rsquo;re going to get not so much a pig pile, but some substance coming out of this thing, finally. (3:00)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham:</strong> Jeb Bush said we have to get passed this nostalgia for the past. Of course, he was referencing Reagan and Reaganism and everyone&rsquo;s looking for the next Reagan, they can&rsquo;t find the next Reagan. So, it&rsquo;s not helpful that we&rsquo;re going backward to the nostalgia. Then, lo and behold, three days ago or four days ago, Jeb Bush opens up his shirt and we see a Reagan/Bush &rsquo;84 t-shirt underneath. And, he pushes his tax plan as this is a Reagan-esque tax plan. Why the big switch? (4:27)</p>
<p><strong>Forbes</strong>: It&rsquo;s called learning. If you want to survive you learn. Samuel Johnson, the great Englishman who invented the dictionary, once observed, &ldquo;The prospect of a hanging concentrates the mind wonderfully.&rdquo; The prospect of political oblivious concentrates the mind wonderfully. And, I think in terms of Ronald Reagan, I was in California yesterday doing some work for the Reagan Library, I heard some words, we heard a tape of Reagan&rsquo;s inaugural address. The original one, 1981. And, by golly, those words ring so true today. So, it&rsquo;s not nostalgia. There will never be a Ronald Reagan, but you can have Reagan-esque principles, whether you are running for President or town council, and that&rsquo;s what is needed and that&rsquo;s what people are looking for. Trump, Bernie Sanders on the other side, have all have tapped into a huge dissatisfaction. People want to kick butt, they&rsquo;re unhappy with where the country is, they don&rsquo;t like the world descending into chaos, and so, people are, as you mentioned early, people are looking about how to go forward. Reagan was very good at criticizing what was happening, but he also put out there ideas of how to get this country moving again. (4:55)</p>
<p><strong>Forbes:</strong> In the inaugural address of 81, Reagan referred to the phrase &ldquo;the consent of the governed.&rdquo; Right now people feel that the governors, as Reagan said, we&rsquo;re serving them rather than the other way around. And, people are frustrated. In Europe, they feel the leaders are clueless. They don&rsquo;t know what they&rsquo;re doing. And, in this country, people feel that the government, Obama knows what he&rsquo;s doing, it just goes against American tradition. And, if he doesn&rsquo;t get the national legislation to go wrong, he just issues the decree like Louis the 14<sup>th</sup> and says take me to court. And, this kind of feeling of helplessness, powerlessness, is enraging people. (10:00)</p>
<p><strong>Forbes:</strong> This is where a big part of the frustration is, is we know, and the Republicans on Capitol Hill know that certain things are coming up. Like, the debt ceiling and things like that. Give credit, and I hate to do it, but give credit to Harry Reid on the other side, who always was coming up with ways to thwart the Republicans. Where is the imagination on our side? Figuring out ways, we know certain things are coming, we know we have a certain time table, how can we start to reverse this thing in a bold, imaginative way instead of reacting a day late and a dollar short. (11:23)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</blockquote> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Forbes-Predicts-Substantive-GOP-Debate/498363024304303360.htmlStaff2015-09-16T17:50:00ZBret Baier Gives Advice to CNN PanelStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Bret-Baier-Gives-Advice-to-CNN-Panel/39915349277566853.html2015-09-15T17:21:00Z2015-09-15T17:21:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on <em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, host of Special Report on Fox News, discussed the Trump phenomenon and offered advice to CNN as they prepare to host the second GOP debate. Regarding Trump, Baier evaluated his rise, claiming &ldquo;there is an entertainment side to Donald Trump, but there is also a political brilliance side to Donald Trump.&rdquo; Baier suggested the people believe only someone like Trump, a Washington outsider, would be able to get things done; he noted that Trump&rsquo;s biggest applause line, consistently, is when he says he is self-funded.</p>
<p>As the CNN debate approaches, Baier urged the network to focus on drawing policy solutions out of the candidates. He concurred with Ingraham, who said she would love to see CNN move past old topics, like Bridgegate with Christie, and focus on new issues, such as the Trans Pacific Partnership. Baier agreed, reminding that despite the focus on Megyn Kelly after the first debate, Fox did draw substantive debates on Common Core and NSA; therefore, although there are still openings that were not covered, it is important this next debate not merely reiterate the same issues.</p>
<p>Partial Transcript [<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjU4NQ==" target="_blank"><strong>LISTEN</strong></a>]</p>
<p>***</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Baier</strong>: It is a phenomena. He has, he&rsquo;s tapped into this, but he&rsquo;s more than tapped into it. He is providing entertainment to this crowd, because the Dallas Texas crowd hasn&rsquo;t seen a New Yorker like this straight talk in a long time. He just lays it out there, okay. But, what I noticed yesterday is each one of these speeches, they&rsquo;re all different. They&rsquo;re off the cuff, essentially, he has some notes. But, he&rsquo;s starting to get a little bit more pin pointed once he gets over the first part, which is kind of all about him and his contacts and how rich he is and how successful he is and how the media stinks. Then, he gets into how he can deliver. I thought the interesting rift in the speech last night was when he said, if a company, like Ford, decides to take their plant over to Mexico, as president, he would call them up and put the pressure on them to get back to the U.S. And, only somebody like Trump, who can negotiate in third person, can make that happen. And, what he does is he&rsquo;s tapped into these people that are so frustrated with Washington that is not getting anything done, that they say, yeah, maybe he can. (3:40)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham</strong>: I think they&rsquo;re thinking with Trump, maybe he isn&rsquo;t conservative on some of these other issues, maybe even some of these social issues, but 40 years of being socially conservative and the Republicans have delivered us a couple of really bad Supreme Court justices and now gay marriage is the law of the land and we still have 40 million abortions. So, if he can get two issues right, and fight for the greatness of America, maybe they&rsquo;ll just go with him. I think that&rsquo;s what&rsquo;s part of it. (6:08)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Baier</strong>: And his biggest applause line, always, is when he says he&rsquo;s self funding, and he&rsquo;s out of the clutch and the grasp of these lobbyists that control decision making in Washington. And, he taps into both parties angst about money in politics and how much they&rsquo;re losing their say because big money has control over some of these politicians and, listen, there is an entertainment side to Donald Trump, but there is a political brilliance side to Donald Trump that I think more and more people are realizing. (6:31)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Baier</strong>: There has to be a way, if it&rsquo;s not going to be Trump, the person who is going to be the nominee is going to have to tap into the same thing Trump has tapped into. You know, Trump is not without his faults and I think that the late night tweeting and the comments sometimes have given some people who were on his side some pause. But, I do think he&rsquo;s on a roll and we&rsquo;ll see how he does at the debate. (7:59)<br /><br /><strong>Baier</strong>: When you get in there and the plates are spinning and it&rsquo;s real time, the questions that you ask produce reaction. And, you have to deal with that, real time. In our debate, there was so much focus on Megyn&rsquo;s question and Trump&rsquo;s reaction and then the post-game of all of that, for the rest of the debate, if you looked at that span of time, there were some hard questions on policy to every candidate. And, the thing that I think is funny is that we look back at that debate and just think one thing. But, if you go watch it again, there&rsquo;s a lot of substance there. I think they&rsquo;re going to try to focus on policy and it&rsquo;ll be interesting to see how Tapper manages to get candidates going at it with each other, that&rsquo;s what he&rsquo;s forecasting he&rsquo;s going to do. I think people want to hear solutions, and hopefully that&rsquo;s what they get to. (9:42)<br /><br /><strong>Ingraham</strong>: We have to move on to the refugee crisis, we have to move onto the Trans-Pacific Partnership, I mean, I hope they actually move on to new issues, because you guys did cover a lot already.&nbsp; (10:40)<br /><br /><strong>Baier</strong>: I think there will be openings we couldn&rsquo;t get to because of time, but we talked about Common Core, NSA, there were great exchanges on both of those.&nbsp; (11:03)<br /><br /><strong>Baier</strong>: We&rsquo;re trying to get Bernie Sanders to come on Special Report with a Republican candidate and have a one on one conversation. The campaigns are pretty interested in that. I think that those kinds of things, that get out of the normal singing to the choir, is really important for big issues. (12:40)<br /><br /></p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Bret-Baier-Gives-Advice-to-CNN-Panel/39915349277566853.htmlStaff2015-09-15T17:21:00ZTrump Maintains Lead; Hillary Continues to SlipStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Trump-Maintains-Lead;-Hillary-Continues-to-Slip/-448425244380197875.html2015-09-14T20:01:00Z2015-09-14T20:01:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p class="p1"><span class="s1">A new <a href="https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/09/13/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-cbs-battleground-poll/"><span class="s2">CBS/YouGov poll</span></a> released yesterday revealed Donald Trump maintaining a strong lead in three major swing states: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Trump is leading at 29%, 40%, and 36%, respectively. However, the <a href="http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1171a22016Politics.pdf"><span class="s2">ABC News/Washington Post poll</span></a>, also released Sunday, confirms that even as he rises in the polls, six out of ten Americans view him as unfit for the presidency. Dr. Ben Carson, who has also jumped up in the YouGov, creeps up on Trump in Iowa and South Carolina, with 25% and 21%. The rise of the two Republican frontrunners confirms the ABC/Washington Post statistics revealing 72% of Americans think people in politics cannot be trusted. Further, 64% define the political system as &ldquo;basically dysfunctional.&rdquo;</span></p>
<p class="p1">As Trump surges, Hillary Clinton lost a third of her support for the Democratic presidential nomination. Hillary has been scrambling to keep poll numbers high as her email scandal unravels. Sanders beat Clinton by a landslide in Iowa (43-33) and New Hampshire (52-33), indicating the self proclaimed socialist may have been underestimated. It is particularly significant that Clinton&rsquo;s gender gap no longer exists, as she has dropped support among women by 29 points and among men by 9 points since July. Despite her decreased support, however, in a general election match up, she still &ldquo;trumps&rdquo; Trump, if just barely, by 3 points (46-43).</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Trump-Maintains-Lead;-Hillary-Continues-to-Slip/-448425244380197875.htmlStaff2015-09-14T20:01:00ZChristie: Put American Concerns First; Kasich Sounds 'Like Somebody Who Served in Congress'Staffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Christie:-Put-American-Concerns-First;-Kasich-Sounds-Like-Somebody-Who-Served-in-Congress/643084169545550550.html2015-09-14T17:22:00Z2015-09-14T17:22:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on&nbsp;<em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, Gov. Chris Christie discussed how he plans to distinguish himself on the debate stage&nbsp;this Wednesday. Following a heated interview with Chuck Todd yesterday, Christie told Ingraham, &ldquo;I &lsquo;m not going to sit around and take that stuff from him just because someone made him the first in the rotating number of hosts on Meet the Press.&rdquo; This attitude has been a critical part of Christie&rsquo;s platform, giving him confidence to emerge&nbsp;on Wednesday&nbsp;by talking about &ldquo;things people are concerned about&rdquo; and taking on the Republican Congress for their lack of action on Obamacare, tax reform, or sanctuary cities. Specifically regarding immigration, Christie said mainstream media, who presents the issue as a losing platform for Republicans, are completely out of touch with the frustrations of the American people. In contrast, Christie promised to &ldquo;put the people of this country and their concerns back at the forefront.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Christie also addressed Gov. John Kasich&rsquo;s (R-OH) recent comments about the push among conservatives to defund Planned Parenthood. The Ohio governor warned conservatives not to shut down the government over defunding the organization; in response, Christie accused Kasich of sounding &ldquo;like somebody who used to serve in Congress.&rdquo; Ultimately, Christie stated, if Republicans continue running away from social issues, like Planned Parenthood, &ldquo;we don&rsquo;t have any right in calling ourselves a pro-life party.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript:<strong>&nbsp;<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjU3MQ==" target="_blank">[LISTEN]</a></strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Christie:&nbsp;</strong>I wasn&rsquo;t going to take that garbage from Chuck Todd yesterday. He sits there and reads stuff out of the New York Times and spouts it back as if it&rsquo;s fact, and it absolutely is not. And, I&rsquo;m not going to sit around and take that stuff from him just because someone made him first in the rotating number of hosts on Meet the Press. (3:44)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>I&rsquo;m sure he&rsquo;s going to love to hear that. What&rsquo;s the strategy going into&nbsp;Wednesday, Governor. You&rsquo;re down to about 2% in most of these polls, you&rsquo;re on stage for the main event, correct? You&rsquo;ll be there at the main event. How do you emerge, especially with all the focus on Trump, maybe Trump-Fiorina, Trump-Jeb? How does Chris Christie emerge? (4:01)</p>
<p><strong>Christie:&nbsp;</strong>The way I emerge is to be myself, like you saw on Meet the Press&nbsp;on Sunday. And, also to talk about things people are concerned about. It&rsquo;s very interesting to me that David Brooks, who is a confident Washington insider, criticized me for criticizing the Republican Congress. Now, if you&rsquo;re like me, who spent a lot of my time on the campaign trail in 2010 helping to get us a Republican House, and in 2014, helping us to get a Republican Senate, and now you sit there and see they haven&rsquo;t passed tax reform or put it on the president&rsquo;s desk, they haven&rsquo;t repealed and replaced Obamacare or put it on the president&rsquo;s desk, haven&rsquo;t passed a bill to ban sanctuary cities and put it on the president&rsquo;s desk. We have every right to be angry and disappointed at this Republican Congress. That&rsquo;s what the public is really upset about. They vote for these folks who don&rsquo;t do what they say they&rsquo;re going to do. So, I&rsquo;ll be talking about those things&nbsp;on Wednesday&nbsp;night as well. (4:31)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>Trade and immigration seem to be the winning issues. Especially those individuals who haven&rsquo;t gone to college, blue collar workers in America, middle income workers. This new poll showing Trump is 73 to Hillary 14 on immigration. What does that tell you about the way the mainstream reporters and pundits have been describing the immigration issue as a losing issue for Republicans? (5:26)</p>
<p><strong>Christie:&nbsp;</strong>They&rsquo;re completely out of touch with the reality of the frustration of the American people. Here&rsquo;s the bottom line: They want a president who&rsquo;s going to enforce the law. They want law and order restored in this country and the best way to do that is to actually hire a president who has enforced the law for his career &ndash; that&rsquo;s what I did for seven years, I&rsquo;m going to back up our police officers who are being executed on the streets. I&rsquo;m going to call out the liberal Democratic mayors like Bill DeBlasio and others who are allowing mayhem to reign on the streets in their cities. We&rsquo;ll end sanctuary cities, we&rsquo;ll secure our border, and most importantly, we&rsquo;re going to make sure the good people in this country who pay their taxes and play by the rules, they&rsquo;re going to know the game is over. The gig is up here with all the Washington insiders getting their way. We&rsquo;re going to put the people of this country and their concerns back at the forefront. (5:56)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>Governor Kasich was asked about those Planned Parenthood videos and the push among conservatives to defund Planned Parenthood.</p>
<p><em>*Kasich Sound*</em></p>
<p>Your reaction to that, Governor? (6:50)</p>
<p><strong>Christie:&nbsp;</strong>You know, it sounds like somebody who used to serve in Congress. If he was speaking as a governor, he would say it&rsquo;s time to get it done. It&rsquo;s abhorrent that Planned Parenthood is getting funded. It hasn&rsquo;t been getting funded in New Jersey for six years, because I stood up and said absolutely not. And, made sure that I sustained any type of override of the vetoes and everything else. So, I think unfortunately that sounds like Washington insider speak, and it sounds like my friend, John, reverted back to his 18 years in Congress, rather than his 4 years as governor of Ohio. (7:34)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>The Republicans can win on this, this is a winning issue for Republicans. But, they&rsquo;re running from these social issues. They don&rsquo;t want to talk about them. (9:35)</p>
<p><strong>Christie:&nbsp;</strong>I don&rsquo;t understand why. It seems to me, if we can&rsquo;t be against the systematic murder of children in the womb, in a manner than allows you to maximize the value of their body parts for sale, for profit on the open market. Then, we don&rsquo;t have any right in calling ourselves a pro-life party. (9:36)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>The Wall Street Journal&rsquo;s piece today, going into great detail about the people who are posing as Syrians to gain access to the EU, EU benefits, and many of them ultimately believe, to the United States of America. Turns out, according to one experts analysis of the crowd, accents, dialects, only 10% of the thousands and thousands that showed up, I guess 40,000 over the weekend, they estimate were Syrians. Many of them passing themselves off as both Syrians and Christians with newly minted baptismal certificates. And, Obama announces last week 10,000 refugees will be brought in starting in October, both Jeb Bush and John Kasich have agreed with that and think that&rsquo;s the least of what we can do at this point. What about the wisdom of bringing in 10,000 of these refugees into the U.S? (11:06)</p>
<p><strong>Christie:&nbsp;</strong>I must say this first off, this is the product of the timidity and the inaction of the President of the United States of even having this crisis be created. He didn&rsquo;t do what he needed to do and imagine this, now we have Russian troops in Syria who are now saying, Putin is now saying, that if it turns out that American wants to do anything in Syria, you have to check with me first? This is outrageous and it&rsquo;s the failed foreign policy of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. First and foremost, we have to have our Department of Homeland Security addressing any of the issues of any of the people who might be admitted to this country. We cannot be permitted to be hoodwinked again. (12:05)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>You trust the Homeland Security? They can&rsquo;t even keep felons in jail in the United States who were illegally in this country. They&rsquo;re being released to murder a young woman in San Francisco, others in Texas, that horrible shooting in Phoenix. 75% of this country doesn&rsquo;t trust the country today in this new Washington Post poll. (12:51)</p>
<p><strong>Christie:&nbsp;</strong>Of course they don&rsquo;t. They have this guy in charge of it. And, if it&rsquo;s done by the order of the President of the United States, I don&rsquo;t trust it. The Congress should stand up and say this is what needs to be done and has to be done if you&rsquo;re going to accept,&nbsp;<em>if</em>&nbsp;you&rsquo;re going to accept, any refugees into this country. (13:07)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>Who&rsquo;s your main rival at the debate&nbsp;Wednesday? (16:13)</p>
<p><strong>Christie:&nbsp;</strong>Jeb Bush. Absolutely. (16:14)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</blockquote> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Christie:-Put-American-Concerns-First;-Kasich-Sounds-Like-Somebody-Who-Served-in-Congress/643084169545550550.htmlStaff2015-09-14T17:22:00ZBuchanan: Battle between Trump and Carson Opens Door for JebStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Buchanan:-Battle-between-Trump-and-Carson-Opens-Door-for-Jeb/-857367153089492365.html2015-09-11T18:35:00Z2015-09-11T18:35:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, conservative commentator, Pat Buchanan, slammed National Review, likening it to a &ldquo;rip and read of Southern Poverty Law Center.&rdquo; He claimed they are terrified of Trump winning the nomination and speculated that Trump and Carson, who are the two Republican frontrunners, are being purposefully pitted against each other, a&nbsp;strategy developed to create space for Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. This would not be an unprecedented strategy, according to Buchanan, who likened it to the treatment of Howard Dean in Iowa, which opened the door for Kerry and Edwards in 2004.</p>
<p>Buchanan also addressed the Syrian refugee crisis. Although Buchanan admitted it is a horrible, tragic situation in Syria, he agreed with Donald Trump, saying we cannot allow the world to accept that once refugees leave Syria, they can come to the United States. Ultimately, he said, the United States has got to protect it&rsquo;s own borders and interests. Regarding nations that have decided to allow hundreds of thousands of refugees, specifically Germany, Buchanan warned Europe is, &ldquo;bringing in millions and millions of folks from third world countries and different religions and the rest of it until it&rsquo;s going to cease to be Europe.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript [<strong><a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjU2NQ==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a></strong>]</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>***</strong></p>
<p><strong>INGRAHAM:</strong>&nbsp;It&rsquo;s now at the point Pat, where I can&rsquo;t sleep at night. I have a problem. I cannot sleep at night because I am thinking about the world as it unfolds, the country as it unfolds for my children and I know your nephews and nieces and everyone in your life, I mean we&rsquo;ll be gone but then we wanted an America to remain and at this point with what&rsquo;s happening, you know? We can all just question that.&nbsp;(1:58)</p>
<p><strong>BUCHANAN:&nbsp;</strong>Well, I think that&rsquo;s exactly right, it&rsquo;s undeniable that, I think, the United States will have no dominant group of people really by religion, or by ethnicity, or by continent, by middle of the century or so. It&rsquo;s hard for me to see how we hold the country together especially when there is a general assault on our history&mdash;people believe we ought to be multi-cultural, multi-lingual, multi-racial, multi-ethnic, and what that means, excuse me, is more of an empire than a nation.&nbsp; (2:24)</p>
<p><strong>INGRAHAM:</strong>&nbsp;Jeb Bush yesterday, joins the Obama administration, once again agreeing on an issue, of bringing in 10,000 Syrian refugees, the percentage of male refugees, and when you call them refugees&mdash;some of them just want to leave their country for economic reasons because they&rsquo;re not all from Syria - but 72% of the refugee population has been estimated to be male. Only 13% children and only 15% women,, Pat. (2:56)</p>
<p><strong>BUCHANAN:&nbsp;</strong>Well, this is ridiculous, look, it&rsquo;s a horrible tragedy going on in Syria and the reason is because they have a civil war there where two terrorist groups, al-Qaida and ISIS are trying to overthrow the repressive regime of Assad. In my judgment, the United States should have basically said, in this fight we are against ISIS and we are against al-Qaida and we&rsquo;ll deal with Assad when that war is over. But, once these four million people left Syria, they arrived in Lebanon, which is not a dictatorial regime, which neither is Turkey, and neither is Jordan. They don&rsquo;t then have a right to pick Canada, for example, to go to or pick the United States. And the United States has got to defend its own borders and its own interest. You notice, I wrote in my column reciting old James Burnham, who wrote 50 years ago, &ldquo;liberalism is the ideology of western suicide.&rdquo; What he meant was, if you follow its premises and its sensitivities and its demands, they will bring an end to your country and your civilization. Laura, let me contrast that with General Eisenhower, when he became president. One million people had slipped into the United States from Mexico, he sent General Swing down there, and said send them back. Now I&rsquo;m sure that they had terrible problems with family problems, with kids, and the rest of it, but he had the toughness to defend the vital interest of his own country and the character and composition of his nation. And, if you&rsquo;re not prepared to do that then you&rsquo;re going to lose it. And, look Europe is, Europe is depopulating of its native born. And, it is bringing in millions and millions of folks from third world countries and different religions and the rest of it until it&rsquo;s going to cease to be Europe. (3:21)</p>
<p><strong>INGRAHAM</strong>: Pat, what does this mean for the Republican Party? Donald Trump was on with Sean Hannity last night and seemed to kind of tack more to what I think is a much more reasonable view on this, which is, look, we&rsquo;re kind of full up with problems over here in the United States. We&rsquo;ve got enormous division. (5:23)</p>
<p><strong>BUCHANAN</strong>: I agree with him in this sense. Look, I have no problem with helping the situation of those refugees who have moved into Jordan, and Turkey, and Lebanon. But, Syria&rsquo;s their country, not the United States and while we can help there financially, and&nbsp; with assistance, the idea that once they leave Syria they can come to the United States, you can&rsquo;t allow that to be accepted by the world. Or, they will alter your own country&hellip;.If you aren&rsquo;t willing to take that kind of tough stand, you will lose your home. (5:40)</p>
<p><strong>BUCHANAN:</strong> &nbsp;You know, Bobby Jindal is not doing well politically and is going on an all out attack on Trump. But, what you mentioned is, Trump said you all have talked about the border and none of you have done anything really about it and we have this problem that keeps festering, and I will do something about it. Secondly, these trade deals have produced losses of jobs and factories&mdash;the whole country knows that, it&rsquo;s why we lost the Reagan Democrats. So, he addresses that, he raises cane about it, and people say maybe he can do something about it because these guys couldn&rsquo;t. And that&rsquo;s the source of Trump&rsquo;s appeal. What Bobby Jindal has done, and I agree, he&rsquo;s a very able guy, he&rsquo;s a scholar, and very well read, but as a candidate he simply does not have the gifts that the Donald has, to be candid. &nbsp;(9:23)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>INGRAHAM: </strong>Has National Review gone globalist, my friend? (11:49)</p>
<p><strong>BUCHANAN</strong>: &nbsp;It&rsquo;s rip and read from Southern Poverty Law Center, I think&hellip; I&rsquo;ll be honest I&rsquo;m not a regular reader, I&rsquo;m not a subscriber to National Review And, occasionally you see some of the articles pop up on Drudge, but there&rsquo;s no question about it, the neo-cons and National Review folks are terrified of the idea of Trump, of whom they don&rsquo;t have any hooks in, winning this nomination. I think the strategy now, that seems to be developing, is force a battle between Carson and Trump in the way Gephardt did the demolition derby job on Howard Dean in Iowa, opening the door for Kerry and Edwards. This is to get these two, Carson and Trump, head to head, and bringing each other down opens the door for Jeb and Rubio. So, my guess is that&rsquo;s the idea that&rsquo;s been seized upon. And, that&rsquo;s why you&rsquo;ll see a promotion of a Carson/Trump fight. (11:50)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</blockquote> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Buchanan:-Battle-between-Trump-and-Carson-Opens-Door-for-Jeb/-857367153089492365.htmlStaff2015-09-11T18:35:00ZHalperin: Hillary Will Have to Win inStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Halperin:-Hillary-Will-Have-to-Win-in/558354494509770608.html2015-09-11T17:44:00Z2015-09-11T17:44:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on <em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, Mark Halperin, the co-managing editor at Bloomberg Politics, discussed the future of Hillary Clinton&rsquo;s campaign as she faces a growing scandal and declining poll numbers. Specifically, Halperin pointed to a growing &ldquo;enthusiasm gap&rdquo; among Hillary supporters, many of whom support her, but have serious concerns surrounding her trustworthiness. Despite these setbacks, he believes &ldquo;she is the most likely next president at this point,&rdquo; because there is a lack of consensus among Republicans regarding who the GOP nominee will be. According to Halperin, at this point in the election cycle there has been a consensus among the &ldquo;smart Republicans&rdquo; and the absence of that agreement gives Hillary an advantage.</p>
<p>Halperin also addressed Hillary&rsquo;s appearance on <em>The Ellen Degeneres Show</em> yesterday. According to her campaign, she will be doing regular news shows, but also appearing regularly on similar pop culture shows over the coming months. He critiqued this strategy, encouraging Hillary to stop restricting the time of her news media interviews, saying &ldquo;I&rsquo;ve been advocating for a long interview&rdquo; to give Hillary time to truly respond to many of the unanswered questions surrounding her email scandal.</p>
<p>Partial Transcript <strong>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjU2Mw==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Halperin: </strong>This is not going to be a coronation, it appears, and her campaign advisors who spent the last couple days on Capitol Hill holding hands with lobbyists and donors to try and convince them this is not so dire. I still think she&rsquo;s the most likely next president at this point. But, she&rsquo;s going to have to slog through the next five months; I don&rsquo;t think they can attack Bernie Sanders. And, I don&rsquo;t think he&rsquo;s going to go away in Iowa or New Hampshire, and I think Clinton folks underestimate both, what would happen if he won Iowa, New Hampshire, or both, and his capacity to grow his strength in other states. In a general election, she&rsquo;s not going to be some bright, shiny figure who unites the country and draws lots of Republican and Independent votes. She&rsquo;s going to have to win this in a very ugly, slogging, scandal plagued way. And, not every politician is cut out to win that way. (3:21)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Do you think there is any real chance that Hillary would drop out? (4:13)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Halperin:</strong> I don&rsquo;t think there&rsquo;s a chance. She wants to be president. She also believes that she is the only way to keep the White House for the Democratic Party. And, she cares about that and so does the current president. So, she will be with us until the last dog dies, unless she has to leave the race she will not. I think Republicans who think she&rsquo;ll get out of the race or easy to beat in the general election, given the electoral college and the demographic advantages the Democrats have, I think are kidding themselves. (4:19</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>You said earlier, did you mean to say, she&rsquo;s still the best odds for her to be president? Or, did you mean nominee? (4:56)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Halperin: </strong>Certainly nominee, but also president. Only because, given that she&rsquo;s, at this point, almost certainly, in an ugly way, going to be the Democratic nominee. I ask all the smart Republicans I know, including those working for the campaigns, who can be nominated. If you take all the names they list, we&rsquo;re looking at six names or so. Those six people today, it&rsquo;d be hard to make a strong case for any of them. And, that&rsquo;s never been true. At this point in every cycle, there&rsquo;s been a consensus among the smart people who&rsquo;s going to be the nominee. And, there ain&rsquo;t no consensus. So you take her odds of being the nominee and everyone else&rsquo;s odds of being the nominee and mathematically she&rsquo;s clearly got the best chance. (5:04)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Halperin: </strong>Towards the end of the campaign we start to ask the question are the pollsters poling the right people. I think in this cycle, with people like Sanders, Trump, and Carson, bringing in new people with the chance that a lot of people say they&rsquo;re for Hillary Clinton but might not be energized to vote for her, it&rsquo;s not too soon to start asking, not challenging the credibility of pollsters or polling in general, are the right people being polled? Are the people who are going to turn out actually the ones being polled? And, I think there&rsquo;s some danger for Hillary in these polls, even the ones that show her ahead, where is she going to be able to generate the enthusiasm. I got to tell you, and the campaign now accepts this, I meet people all the time who say I&rsquo;m voting for Hillary Clinton, she&rsquo;s my candidate, she&rsquo;s the only one who can keep the White House, and say, I have real questions about her trustworthiness, her honesty, this email thing. She may have an enthusiasm gap problem. You&rsquo;re starting to see that in some of the polls as well. (6:35)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Biden has won the Colbert primary, and Hillary has won the Ellen primary. So that&rsquo;s established. Your reaction? (10:01)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Halperin: </strong>One of the things she&rsquo;s going to do, and I think this will be received by different people in different ways, is a lot more things like Ellen. She&rsquo;s going to do news interviews, but on a regular basis in the coming months between now and Iowa she&rsquo;s going to do entertainment shows and chat shows. Her supporters and campaign say this is great for us because we&rsquo;ve got a great product to sell, people are really going to like her in those settings. I think some of your listeners and others will be skeptical. (10:08)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Halperin: </strong>I talk to her staff all the time about the unanswered questions around the email stuff and some of them they answer and some of them they stubbornly don&rsquo;t, which not just gets my suspicion up and my frustration, because I think it&rsquo;d be good for the country for her to answer some questions like, did she ask a lawyer at the State Department for approval before she set up the server? That&rsquo;s one of many. I don&rsquo;t think there&rsquo;s anything wrong with doing the pop culture stuff as long as you sit down for serious interviews. As I said, they say the plan is regular news interviews, regular pop appearances. But, I think both will be factored in here as people look to see in the Democratic Party, and if she&rsquo;s the nominee, in the general, is this what we want in a president. (11:01)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Halperin:-Hillary-Will-Have-to-Win-in/558354494509770608.htmlStaff2015-09-11T17:44:00ZGingrich: Trump Will be Held to a "Presidential Standard"Staffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Gingrich:-Trump-Will-be-Held-to-a-Presidential-Standard/31513950599553126.html2015-09-10T17:22:00Z2015-09-10T17:22:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on <em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich shared his perspective on the rise of Donald Trump as the next debate approaches. Gingrich referred to Trump&rsquo;s rise as a &ldquo;remarkable story,&rdquo; but admitted the GOP frontrunner has a lot to learn before earning the Party&rsquo;s nomination. Although Trump has successfully dominated the media, Gingrich said, &ldquo;What got him to the top of the mountain won&rsquo;t keep him at the top of the mountain.&rdquo; The former Speaker suggested that at some point, voters start applying a &ldquo;presidential standard&rdquo; and, at that point, the American people want someone who is &ldquo;thoughtful, disciplined, who edits himself.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Gingrich also addressed the Iran nuclear deal, expressing concern that the Democratic Party has decided to &ldquo;literally ignore the American people.&rdquo; He referenced the recent polls revealing a mere <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2015/09/08/support-for-iran-nuclear-agreement-falls/" target="_blank">21%</a> of Americans support the deal with Iran, meaning only one in every five voters favor the Democratic deal. The significance of the deal, according to Gingrich is, &ldquo;the Democrats are now betting the future on Ayatollah Komeini . . . a man who said, recently, death to America remains our battle cry.&rdquo; The concept of risking America&rsquo;s future and trusting the Iranian dictator is so baffling, Gingrich said, &ldquo;you need psychologists, not political analysts, to explain John Kerry and Barack Obama.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript <a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjU0NQ==" target="_blank">[<strong>LISTEN</strong>]</a></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Gingrich: </strong>I think first of all, this is an amazing year. I think Trump is a remarkable story. But, I also think Ben Carson is a remarkable story. In some ways, I think Carson is even more unlikely than Trump to be where he is now. But, if you look at the numbers on the CNN poll, these two guys, between them, totally dominate the field. And, it&rsquo;s remarkable. Let me emphasize, we are a long way from the nomination, there is a lot of work to be done. Trump&rsquo;s going to have to learn some stuff in order to be a potential president, which is a very different profile for the average American than being a billionaire. But, I think he&rsquo;s done a remarkable job of dominating the media and I think the voters are also telling us, the American people are also telling us, that they are very, very deeply fed up with Washington and that they want real change. (1:48)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>If someone had a gun to your head right now and said who has a likelier chance of being the GOP nominee, Donald Trump or Ben Carson, what are you going to say? (3:03)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Gingrich: </strong>You&rsquo;d say Trump. But, remember, here&rsquo;s the reason I am very cautious. No one that I know could have told you in January that you would have Donald Trump and Dr. Ben Carson dominating, not ahead, dominating a national poll in early September. (3:11)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>I&rsquo;ll give you one thing, Newt. For many, many years we&rsquo;ve been talking about this. We talked about this when you ran for president. A candidate who is of independent means, who is not beholden to the donor class, and who hits two key issues, maybe three, immigration, globalism, the China threat, and has some panache and charisma. Talking about issues that nobody is talking about, the establishment certainly doesn&rsquo;t want to talk about these failures, could change the race forever. We&rsquo;ve said that, you&rsquo;ve said that. If you hit these core issues the middle class is so upset about, and you have the means to do it. Reagan had to do that. I&rsquo;m not saying Trump is Reagan, but Reagan did have to do that. A lot of the people who are out there criticizing Trump are the same ones who were writing op-eds against Ronald Reagan in 1978. (3:37)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Gingrich: </strong>This is clearly going to be a straight up insider-outsider fight. All the insider fighters who were anti-Reagan and anti-Goldwater are going to be frothing at the mouth and saying horrible things. It&rsquo;s almost funny to watch, frankly. You have people who were in past administrations who write columns that indicate they can&rsquo;t cope with what&rsquo;s happening. &nbsp;(4:36)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>The Iran rally yesterday, what was the significance of that? If any? (5:07)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Gingrich: </strong>The big significance is the Democrats are now betting the future, thanks to Barack Obama and John Kerry, on Ayatollah&nbsp;Khomeini. I mean, I&rsquo;ve never seen a national Party decide it would literally ignore the American people, 21% of whom support this deal with Iran, one out of every five Americans favors what the Democrats are now doing. Now, that&rsquo;s a level, and they&rsquo;re not in control of their future. They&rsquo;re about to vote to put Ayatollah Khomeini in control of their future. A man who said, recently, death to America remains our battle cry, Israel will cease to exist. It&rsquo;s not like these guys are clever or subtle. And, to watch a great party literally turn it&rsquo;s definition over to an Iranian dictator is astonishing. Here we are on 9/11, 14 years later, not only with the Democratic Party having learned nothing, but having more committed to America&rsquo;s future being at risk because they want to believe in a guy who is a religious fanatic who publically states he wants to kill us. This is almost where you need psychologists, not political analysts, to explain John Kerry and Barack Obama. (5:10)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>Trump made some comments about Fiorina, talking about her viability, I think. You know, he talks kind of off the cuff&hellip; (6:34)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Gingrich: </strong>He&rsquo;s got to learn to not do that... What got him to the top of the mountain won&rsquo;t keep him at the top of the mountain. I think that&rsquo;s what he&rsquo;s got to understand People are now moving from measuring him as an interesting joke, which was phase one, to kind of an interesting possible candidate, which is phase two, to emerging as a genuine front runner, to potentially being dominate. And, at that point, people start applying a presidential standard. Is this somebody you&rsquo;re comfortable with in the Oval Office? Is this somebody you&rsquo;re comfortable with their finger on the nuclear button potentially getting us into a nuclear war?&nbsp; At that level, you want a president who is thoughtful, disciplined, who edits himself, he doesn&rsquo;t just have random things. And, I thought what he said about Carly Fiorina was just personally insulting and, from Trump&rsquo;s own standpoint, it was just stupid. There&rsquo;s no reason to say these kinds of things. (6:49)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Gingrich:-Trump-Will-be-Held-to-a-Presidential-Standard/31513950599553126.htmlStaff2015-09-10T17:22:00ZReligious groups want U.S. to accept 100,000 Syrian refugeesStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Religious-groups-want-U.S.-to-accept-100,000-Syrian-refugees/480968493680005989.html2015-09-09T16:58:00Z2015-09-09T16:58:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br>The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, and the Jewish refugee assistance agency HIAS along with secular groups <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/religious-groups-want-u-accept-100-000-syrian-211622478.html;_ylt=AwrBTzpXY_BVXmsAh_NXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyazdybWZrBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjA5MzJfMQRzZWMDc3I-" target="_blank">have also backed that figure</a>. <br /><br /> Since Syria's war broke out in 2011, Washington has accepted 1,500 refugees, most of them this year, and the State Department expects 300 more by October. Four million people have fled the country since the fighting began, according to U.N. estimates. <br /><br /> "We've been disappointed at the current status of U.S. leadership," Smyers said. "I think we have seen some nodding of heads and people recognizing that something needs to be done, but we're still waiting to see what that is." <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Religious-groups-want-U.S.-to-accept-100,000-Syrian-refugees/480968493680005989.htmlStaff2015-09-09T16:58:00ZHuckabee Unloads on McConnell and BoehnerStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Huckabee-Unloads-on-McConnell-and-Boehner/-865182448714159167.html2015-09-09T16:44:00Z2015-09-09T16:44:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT649_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">Today</span> on <em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) expressed his frustration with the Republican establishment, claiming "McConnell and Boehner are marching to the beat of the donor class, they are just protecting themselves, not the people." Huckabee pointed to the Iran deal, indicating that it has been pushed through despite having only 21% of public support. He then apologized for supporting McConnell, saying "I fully thought if we elected Republicans to the the majority, we'd get something for it." He admitted he is embarrassed by his prior endorsement of the Kentucky Senator, who has "given Obama everything he wants." At some point, Huckabee said, people need to start asking Republicans in the Senate why they passed the Iran deal and when they will start representing the American people.
<p>Partial Transcript&nbsp;<strong><a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjUzNQ==" target="_blank">[LISTEN]</a></strong></p>
<blockquote><br /></blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Huckabee-Unloads-on-McConnell-and-Boehner/-865182448714159167.htmlStaff2015-09-09T16:44:00ZBartiromo: People are Sick of Talking PointsStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Bartiromo:-People-are-Sick-of-Talking-Points/436595998346823066.html2015-09-08T17:23:00Z2015-09-08T17:23:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, Fox Business anchor, Maria Bartiromo addressed the large and growing amount of uncertainty among the American people regarding the economy in the US, as well as the global economy. According to Bartiromo, we ought to be much farther ahead in recovery in regards to job growth and wage increases. According to Bartiromo, people are not feeling the recovery from the recession because they have not seen a change in salary and, meanwhile, are seeing costs going up around them.</p>
<p>Ingraham pointed to the recent trade deal, suggesting there are great costs to negotiating with nations who cheat and manipulate; Bartiromo agreed, and asserted most of these costs fall on the American taxpayer who is left wondering why they are impacted by the fall of Greece&rsquo;s or China&rsquo;s economy. According to Bartiromo, this frustration is the reason Trump is resonating with voters, &ldquo;because he recognizes that these trade deal with China is hurting the average workers.&rdquo; She says, the people are sick of talking points, which is why they are gravitating towards anti-establishment candidates like Trump, Carson, and Fiorina.</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Bartiromo:-People-are-Sick-of-Talking-Points/436595998346823066.htmlStaff2015-09-08T17:23:00ZThe Road to Crisis is Paved with Good IntentionsStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/The-Road-to-Crisis-is-Paved-with-Good-Intentions/-764383029951612942.html2015-09-08T16:53:00Z2015-09-08T16:53:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br>As Syrians flee their worn torn country, controversy has erupted across the globe regarding the moral responsibility of other nations to respond. <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/Commentary/2015/09/what-the-media-isnt-saying-about-the-refugee-crisis-in-middle-east" target="_blank">Germany has taken on the bulk of the migrant problem, anticipating 800,000 migrants by the end of the year and spending $6.7 billion to address the crisis</a>. Yesterday, the German Vice Chancellor, Sigmar Gabriel, said, &ldquo;I believe we could surely deal with something in the order of half a million [refugees] for several years. Last week, United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron announced Britain will resettle up to 20,000 Syrian refugees over the next five years. Mr. Cameron faced loud opposition, but continued, saying &ldquo;we will continue to show the world that this is a country of extraordinary compassion always standing up for our values and helping those in need.&rdquo; <br /><br /> Today, Tim Aker, Member of European Parliament for the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) voiced his opposition to Cameron&rsquo;s &ldquo;borderless Britain&rdquo; policies on The Laura Ingraham Show. Aker stressed the importance of taking the country back, echoing America&rsquo;s own Donald Trump, as he revealed &ldquo;there&rsquo;s this kind of cult-like fantasy that we must get rid of national borders, we must welcome everyone.&rdquo; Further, he addressed the importance of representatives prioritizing their consitutents, asking &ldquo;What position could I have to say to the people who elected me, who I&rsquo;m responsible for, that, sorry guys, I&rsquo;m not going to put you first, I&rsquo;m going to put other people first. No! Each representative has to put their people first.&rdquo; Ultimately, Aker questioned Cameron&rsquo;s judgement in accepting more refugees, as the UK &ldquo;cannot continue to take people in without it hurting current citizens in Britain.&rdquo; <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/The-Road-to-Crisis-is-Paved-with-Good-Intentions/-764383029951612942.htmlStaff2015-09-08T16:53:00ZWalker: I'll Sign the PledgeStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Walker:-Ill-Sign-the-Pledge/716426716740171851.html2015-09-03T17:17:00Z2015-09-03T17:17:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) responded to a new report from Center for Immigration Studies, which&nbsp; 51% of immigrant households receive welfare. Ingraham asked the governor whether the new statistics, given the impact on American taxpayers, altered his thinking on the birthright citizenship. Walker, however, maintained his position on birthright, repeating his plans to secure the border and open the law.</p>
<p>Walker also addressed the RNC&rsquo;s loyalty oath, which requires candidates to affirm that if they do not win the nomination, they will support the eventual GOP nominee. The Wisconsin governor said he would have no problems signing the pledge, saying the priority for the Republican Party ought to be defeating Hillary Clinton. He elaborated on his own track record as governor in Wisconsin, concluding, &ldquo;I&rsquo;m going to support a Republican&hellip; I just think I&rsquo;m the best one to make that case.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript <strong><a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjQ5Nw==" target="_blank">[LISTEN]</a></strong></p>
<p>****</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>51 percent of immigrants, both legal and illegal, it&rsquo;s not broken down, 51 percent, receive some type of welfare benefit in the United States. It&rsquo;s a report that just came out yesterday by CIS. You have kind of gone back and forth on this issue of birthright citizenship, I want to give you a chance to maybe clarify that, especially in light of this recent news, stemming from this recent news. But, it&rsquo;s costing the American taxpayer an enormous amount of money, services, crowded schools, infrastructure, healthcare, food stamps, disability benefits, and beyond. What is your current thinking on the birthright citizenship issue? (2:30)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Walker: </strong>I&rsquo;m consistent on this. I said, I&rsquo;m not looking to change the Constitution. What I am looking to do is a combination of securing the border and enforcing the laws. I&rsquo;m in Texas today, I was with Governor Abbott earlier this year, early on in the year, touring the border, and seeing that we&rsquo;re every day being penetrated in this border by international criminal organizations that are pushing drugs, they&rsquo;re pushing firearms, they&rsquo;re pushing people through human trafficking. If we actually haven&rsquo;t set a lip service like we&rsquo;ve gotten out of politicians for years, but if we actually have a president who is truly committed to securing the borders and enforcing the laws, that means an E-Verify system that every employer in America, an effective system, that every employer in the country has to use so that they people working for them are legal. And, then we enforce the laws. No sanctuary cities, you want to be here, you&rsquo;ve got to be legal to be here. That means public assistance as well. If we do that, it takes care of all these other questions that come up. (3:10)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>It actually doesn&rsquo;t, governor. 300,000 children are born in the United States to parents who are not American citizens. 300,000. That&rsquo;s a big number. And, if someone comes here legally, but is not an American citizen, they come here legally, as they do with birth tourism that happened in Long Beach and Phoenix and Texas, come here legally and have a child, that child becomes an American citizen. So, you can enforce the border all you want. My question to you is, is that a tradition that should continue, governor? (4:15)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Walker: </strong>I understand what you&rsquo;re saying, but I&rsquo;m saying if we do what I&rsquo;ve said all throughout this year, stared out with our mutual friend Chris Wallace earlier in the year when I did Fox news Sunday with Chris Wallace at CPAC and said, secure the border, enforce the laws, no amnesty, and have a legal immigration system, which you pointed out praise for my position, others give me some grief on it. But, I said a legal immigration system that gives priority to the impact on American working families and their wages in a way that will truly improve the American economy. If we take those steps, meaning we don&rsquo;t just secure the border, we don&rsquo;t just enforce the laws, we say, going forward, in all that we do, not just in immigration but in trade and everything else, we&rsquo;re going to make sure that the only thing we worry about is the impact on American families and the hardworking taxpayers that are working hard every single day. We do those things, then you have an impact in term of people coming. And, you have people in America who are here to work. (4:49)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham: </strong>The loyalty oath that the RNC is now drawn up, it&rsquo;s called The Pledge, that you affirm that if you don&rsquo;t win the nomination, you&rsquo;ll endorse who the presidential nominee is, regardless of who it is. Good idea? Bad idea? It&rsquo;s clearly directed at Trump. Do you think this is&hellip;? (5:58)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Walker: </strong>Yeah, well, at the first debate, everybody said yes except the one guy in the middle. I think it makes sense. I think the worst thing America could have is Hillary Clinton be elected president. I think I&rsquo;m the best candidate to take on Hillary Clinton, I think I&rsquo;m, versus say someone like Governor Bush, a name from the past, we don&rsquo;t need another name from the past to do that, we need a name for the future. I think someone who&rsquo;s from outside of Washington who can actually wreak some havoc on Washington, like I wreaked havoc on our state house a couple years ago, we need someone who can do that. And, I think someone who&rsquo;s actually accomplished something, particularly in a blue state. I have no problem saying, as I did that day, if I&rsquo;m not the nominee, I&rsquo;m going to support a Republican. I think there are many great candidates, I just think I&rsquo;m the best one to make that case. (6:14)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Walker:-Ill-Sign-the-Pledge/716426716740171851.htmlStaff2015-09-03T17:17:00ZRand Paul: Cheney Wrong on Every Foreign Policy DecisionStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Rand-Paul:-Cheney-Wrong-on-Every-Foreign-Policy-Decision/718721950315408836.html2015-09-03T16:33:00Z2015-09-03T16:33:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on&nbsp;<em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) addressed the &ldquo;return of the Cheney&rsquo;s,&rdquo; as Jeb Bush&rsquo;s campaign amasses copious amounts of money. While on a book tour, Cheney voiced the idea of putting 10,000 American boots on the ground to defeat ISIS. Paul quickly responded, &ldquo;I think Dick Cheney has probably been wrong about almost every foreign policy decision over the last 20 or 30 years.&rdquo; He referenced Cheney&rsquo;s prediction that Americans would be welcomed as liberators in Iraq and asserted, &ldquo;what Dick Cheney promotes as far as boots on the ground everywhere all the time is it&rsquo;s been a disaster for this country.&rdquo; Paul contrasted his views with Cheney&rsquo;s, suggesting the first 10,000 boots on the ground ought to be Arab boots on the ground; according to the Kentucky senator, Saudi Arabia treats the United States army as its own, an idea Paul finds &ldquo;very objectionable.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Paul also addressed the latest controversy regarding Jeb Bush speaking Spanish at a high school in Florida earlier this week, which the senator brushed off as &ldquo;not that big a deal.&rdquo; At the same time, however, Paul advocated for &ldquo;melting into the pot,&rdquo; and voiced concerns regarding immigrants who want to be part of America, but also remain fully part of another culture. Ingraham suggested Jeb&rsquo;s courting of the Hispanic community by speaking in Spanish confirms immigrants today are not assimilating, as they did in previous generations. Paul dismissed this, claiming Jeb&rsquo;s Spanish and assimilation are separate issues.</p>
<p>Partial Transcript&nbsp;<strong><a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjQ5MQ==" target="_blank">[LISTEN]</a></strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>Are you speaking Spanish on the trail at all? (7:25)<strong> <br /></strong></p>
<p><strong>Paul:&nbsp;</strong>I&rsquo;m afraid my Spanish is so bad that people are asking me not to speak any Spanish, but I can speak a little bit and it helped me when I was down in Guatemala to sort of communicate with patients. (7:26)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>Obviously there&rsquo;s a little dust up over the way to approach voters today and whether we&rsquo;re really requiring assimilation of people in the United States or whether there are many, especially on the Left, but some on the right I think, as well, have no problem with kind of a separatist understanding that&rsquo;s allowed to gel in certain immigrant communities.</p>
<p><strong>Paul:&nbsp;</strong>I think we may have overplayed this. But, I think your point on assimilation is an important one. I have a good friend who came here and his parents were from Central America, and then one with parents from South America, and he told me, growing up my mother told me we speak Spanish at home, but we want to be successful in America so we speak English when we&rsquo;re outside the home to make sure our English is good, and to make sure we can do well in America. And, I think assimilation is an amazing thing. A good example of how, even in our country, assimilation didn&rsquo;t happen and it&rsquo;s been a disaster for the people, has been the Native American population on the reservations. If they were assimilated within their decade they&rsquo;d probably be doing as well as the rest of us. But, instead, seclusion and isolating them, we took their land and put them on small corners of land, but they don&rsquo;t do very well. (9:26)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>What do you think Jeb&rsquo;s getting at? He&rsquo;s getting a lot of praise from all the kind of cool people and mainstream liberal media for this. What&rsquo;s going on here? (10:17)</p>
<p><strong>Paul:&nbsp;</strong>Oh, I don&rsquo;t know. I think some of the criticism has been overblown and some of the support has been overblown. I&rsquo;m not that big a deal on whether or not you speak to an audience in Spanish. So, I don&rsquo;t think it&rsquo;s that big a deal. (10:28)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>Hold on, hold on. Isn&rsquo;t that confirming the point that a lot of people who are here, who have come here, many of them have come illegally. I mean, I don&rsquo;t know how many people legal or illegal he was talking to. But, doesn&rsquo;t that kind of confirm the point that it&rsquo;s different from previous generations. That they&rsquo;re not assimilating. In fact, it&rsquo;s so bad you have to campaign in Spanish? (10:28)</p>
<p><strong>Paul:&nbsp;</strong>I think it&rsquo;s two different points. I think you can overstate speaking to people in Spanish, I spoke to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce here about a year ago, and I did a couple of opening lines in Spanish and made fun at how bad my Spanish was. (11:00)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>That&rsquo;s different. (11:12)</p>
<p><strong>Paul:&nbsp;</strong>And, then, but we also talked about how assimilation when you bring some of the different cultural influences from your country and you make them part of the greater American way, that that is good. And, I don&rsquo;t want to say that different trades that people from Latin America, the romance languages and all that bring to America. We are a big mixture and melting pot of a lot of things. But, I do agree with your point that we melt into the pot, and you bring your cultural attributes and you try to make America a better place, and we do often. But, if you come and you stay separate and you say we&rsquo;re going to adhere to a law, particularly the thing with some of those who come here and are actually taking their girls back to parts of the Middle East and doing genital mutilation, which is almost even hard to talk about. But, it&rsquo;s like that kind of stuff is not assimilation and that&rsquo;s child abuse. So, the thing is we do want people who come to America to be part of it, but I don&rsquo;t want people who want to come to America and then be still part of another sort of&hellip; (11:13)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>What do you make of the return of the Cheney&rsquo;s as Jeb is obviously amassing a huge amount of money? The Cheney&rsquo;s were out on their book tour and, pretty good appearances around CNN and Fox, arguing for a much more muscular foreign policy at one point yesterday, entertaining the idea of 10,000 American troops on the ground to defeat ISIS, if that&rsquo;s what it takes. What&rsquo;s your reaction to that? (12:21)</p>
<p><strong>Paul:&nbsp;</strong>You know, I think Dick Cheney has probably been wrong about almost every foreign policy decision over the last 20 or 30 years. He thought we&rsquo;d be greeted as liberators in Iraq. The only time he was right about something in foreign policy was when he advised the first George Bush that taking Baghdad would lead to chaos, civil war, and destabilize the region. And, that&rsquo;s ultimately what happened. We have a disaster in Iraq, we&rsquo;ve got a disaster in Syria, we&rsquo;ve got a disaster in Libya. But, all from sort of the notions that Dick Cheney and his friends have put forward that America should be involved everywhere, all the time. And, really, the one true thing in the Middle East that&rsquo;s happened again and again is that when we topple a secular, strong man, what we get is chaos and the rise of radical Islam. So, no, I think what Dick Cheney promotes as far as boots on the ground everywhere all the time is it&rsquo;s been a disaster for this country, it&rsquo;s everything that I oppose, and one thing that I want to be mentioning, and making a big point at the debate is, that I&rsquo;m different. I&rsquo;m the one who&rsquo;s not sending our young men and women back into the Middle East for another 10 or 15-year war there. The boots on the ground need to be Arab boots on the ground. And, instead of Dick Cheney wanting to send Americans there what he ought to be advocating is what I&rsquo;m advocating: the first 10,000 boots in every battle over there need to be from Saudi Arabia because I&rsquo;m tired of providing great wealth to them. They fund radical Islam around the world, and even in our country, and yet, they&rsquo;re unwilling to fight. They think we&rsquo;re they&rsquo;re army and I find that very objectionable. (12:42)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Rand-Paul:-Cheney-Wrong-on-Every-Foreign-Policy-Decision/718721950315408836.htmlStaff2015-09-03T16:33:00ZNew Report Finds 51% of Immigrant Households on WelfareStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/New-Report-Finds-51-of-Immigrant-Households-on-Welfare/-145246302796247779.html2015-09-02T16:58:00Z2015-09-02T16:58:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>In a new&nbsp;<a href="http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-Native-Households" target="_blank">study</a>, Center for Immigration Studies reveals immigrant households (legal and illegal) use welfare at a significantly higher rate than native American households. Today on&nbsp;<em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, Steve Camarota,Director of Research for the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), discussed the significance of the numbers. The new numbers confirm 51% of immigrant households rely on at least one form of welfare, in contrast to only 30% of native households. Even more shocking, 76% of households headed by immigrants who do not have a college degree, which Camarota clarified is most immigrant households, rely on welfare.</p>
<p>Linda Chavez, president of the Becoming American Institute,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/01/immigrant-welfare-use-report/71517072/" target="_blank">claimed</a>, &ldquo;We forget that we see immigrants change very rapidly in the second generation.&rdquo; Unfortunately for Chavez, CIS&rsquo; study debunks this myth, finding 48% immigrant households who have resided in the United States for 20 years still rely on welfare, down only 3% from the other immigrant households.</p>
<p>There are currently 93 million Americans out of the labor force, 50 million Americans in poverty, and 46 million on food stamps. Further, American workers have not seen a wage increase in 17 years. Yet, vast amounts of money - the study amounted federal expenditures to nearly half a trillion dollars, along with $180 billion of the states&rsquo; own money - are being spent to subsidize the lives of non-citizens. No wonder the American people are frustrated.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/New-Report-Finds-51-of-Immigrant-Households-on-Welfare/-145246302796247779.htmlStaff2015-09-02T16:58:00ZChristie: I'm the Guy to Maintain Law and OrderStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Christie:-Im-the-Guy-to-Maintain-Law-and-Order/799903354153146048.html2015-09-02T16:34:00Z2015-09-02T16:34:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br>On <span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT355_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">today</span>&rsquo;s program, Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) responded to Jeb&rsquo;s comments at&nbsp;<span style="background-image: initial; background-repeat: initial;">La Progresiva Presbyterian School&nbsp;</span><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT356_com_zimbra_date" class="Object">yesterday</span> in Florida, saying, &ldquo;the chaotic disruptive world creates more prosperity, more benefits, more innovations, more creativity than the get in line society.&rdquo; Christie dismissed these comments, saying &ldquo;I have no idea what Jeb&rsquo;s talking about,&rdquo; jumping into his own narrative on law enforcement. Christie addressed the frustration growing among the American people, arguing &ldquo;the law needs to be enforced in fairness to the American people, the American workers.&rdquo; The New Jersey governor distinguished himself from Jeb, referencing his record of maintaining law and order, concluding &ldquo;I don&rsquo;t know what Jeb meant&hellip;but, I know what I mean. And, it&rsquo;s not hard to understand.&rdquo;
<p>Partial Transcript&nbsp;<strong><a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjQ4MQ==" target="_blank">[LISTEN]</a></strong></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>He was speaking to students at a Latino school, Hispanic school, speaking Spanish in part. What&rsquo;s the &ldquo;get in line&rdquo; society? What does that mean? What&rsquo;s your take on that? (3:45)</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Christie:&nbsp;</strong>I&rsquo;ve got to tell you the truth Laura. I just listened to that clip for the first time, I have no idea what Jeb&rsquo;s talking about. So, let&rsquo;s not even worry about that, I have no idea what he means. There&rsquo;s going to be law enforcing in this country again, if I&rsquo;m President of the United States. And, I think that&rsquo;s what&rsquo;s leading to the frustration and the anger in the American people is that government can&rsquo;t even do the most basic tasks. And, they want the law enforced. And, the law needs to be enforced in fairness to the American people, the American workers, the folks who are here who are struggling to make a living for their family and feel like every time the law isn&rsquo;t enforced, they&rsquo;re the ones who get shafted. And, they&rsquo;re right. And, so whether it&rsquo;s the tax code not being enforced. The immigration law not being enforced. Whether it&rsquo;s murders of police officers and our unwillingness to stand up for law enforcement in this country. They have one person on that stage who&rsquo;s been a law enforcement person, who knows how to maintain law and order, I&rsquo;m the guy. And, I&rsquo;ll do the same thing on immigration. So, I don&rsquo;t know what Jeb meant by all of that. I don&rsquo;t understand it. But, I know what I mean. And, it&rsquo;s not hard to understand what I mean. The American people can hear me clearly. (3:59)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Christie:-Im-the-Guy-to-Maintain-Law-and-Order/799903354153146048.htmlStaff2015-09-02T16:34:00ZCarly: No One Talks About the Men Running for VPStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Carly:-No-One-Talks-About-the-Men-Running-for-VP/-825040941044004075.html2015-09-02T15:28:00Z2015-09-02T15:28:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on&nbsp;<em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, Carly Fiorina, former HP CEO and GOP presidential candidate, addressed accusations of sexist motives behind CNN&rsquo;s debate rule change. Last night, CNN announced alterations to the&nbsp;Sept. 16&nbsp;Republican primary debate rules, making room for Fiorina on the main stage. Rachel Maddow called these changes &ldquo;affirmative action&rdquo; for Fiorina who emphatically responded, &ldquo;it&rsquo;s really kind of outrageous when you earn it, people say it&rsquo;s affirmative action. I earned this place, by virtue of my position in the polls.&rdquo; However, Ingraham pushed Fiorina asking about the message sent by CNN by bending the rules to accommodate the only woman in the race, arguing the rules are the rules. Fiorina dismissed the accusations, saying &ldquo;We also are a nation that believes this is a Republican primary, not a media primary,&rdquo; pointing out that the Fox News rules for the first debate were also &ldquo;crazy.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Fiorina did not, however, dismiss all sexist sentiments within the presidential race. Although she said, &ldquo;I have never made gender an issue in this campaign,&rdquo; she was affronted by claims that she is running for vice-president. In response to those claims, Fiorina simply said, &ldquo;That&rsquo;s sexist.&rdquo; She clarified, &ldquo;I am as qualified a candidate as anyone running. No one talks about the men being in it to be VP. I&rsquo;m in it to win this job and to do this job.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript&nbsp;<strong><a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjQ3OQ==" target="_blank">[LISTEN]</a></strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>Rachel Maddow is basically saying it&rsquo;s affirmative action for you, yesterday on MSNBC.(1:58)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Fiorina:&nbsp;</strong>Well, you know, it&rsquo;s really kind of outrageous when you earn it, people say it&rsquo;s affirmative action. I earned this place, by virtue of my position in the polls. No one else in the race has gone from the bottom 17 to the top ten, I have. I&rsquo;ve earned it. And, you know, I&rsquo;m number four nationally in the latest poll, I&rsquo;m number three in New Hampshire, number three in Iowa, in the top five in virtually every state poll there is. Comfortably in the top ten in every national poll there&rsquo;s been. I&rsquo;ve earned this place. I think the reason CNN changed their minds is because the facts changed, as they said in their statement. Last cycle, there were many more polls between&nbsp;Aug. 6 and Sept. 10, that was the fundamental flaw here. (2:03)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>If you weren&rsquo;t a woman, would they have broken the rules for you? Because the rules are the rules, right? We&rsquo;re supposed to be a law and order party, we believe in rules, right, and you didn&rsquo;t make it according to the rules. I said the night of the debate, you won the debate, and I said afterwards, I think you won both debates, period. I said that right away. But, the rules are the rules and the rules were changed to accommodate the only woman in the race. What does that tell people out there in the country? The rules were bent for the only woman in the race. (3:13)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Fiorina:&nbsp;</strong>Let me tell you something, Laura. We had literally thousands and thousands and thousands of people across this country&hellip; (3:42)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>The rules were changed for you though. (3:48)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Fiorina:&nbsp;</strong>Can I answer the question? We had literally thousands and thousands and thousands of people across the country who thought the game was rigged, the deck was stacked. And, the reason they thought the game was rigged was because there were so many more polls between July 16 and Aug. 6<sup>th</sup>&nbsp;than there were going to be between Aug. 6<sup>th</sup>&nbsp;and Sept. 10<sup>th</sup>. And, so, you can say the rules are the rules; we also happen to be a nation that believes this is a Republican primary, not a media primary. So, since when does CNN or Fox News for that matter, I thought the Fox News rules were crazy too. Since when does CNN get to decide? The point is, the thumb on the scale occurred because this year, unlike previous presidential cycles, there were virtually no polls between Aug. 6<sup>th</sup>&nbsp;and Sept. 10<sup>th</sup>. And, the facts are also clear that there&rsquo;s only one candidate who&rsquo;s moved to the top ten, that&rsquo;s me. So, I think I earned this place. (3:50)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>We said on Fox the other night that the RNC should have been on this from the beginning. This is a failure on the part of the RNC. We have people thinking CNN is manipulating the rules now to make their plus one, that you&rsquo;re the plus one on the stage, and why shouldn&rsquo;t everyone be on the stage? And, I said the RNC, from the beginning, should have put into place rules that made sense. And, I completely agree with you. The rules should have been the polls after the first debate, they show you jumped further than anyone. Period. (4:55)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Fiorina:&nbsp;</strong>Right, that&rsquo;s right. And, I would just say one other thing. I have never made gender an issue in this campaign. I&rsquo;m not running because I&rsquo;m a woman. I&rsquo;m running because I can win this job and I&rsquo;m qualified to do the job. And, I&rsquo;m going to keep running this way. So, I think, I earned my place on this debate stage. I think I&rsquo;ll earn the nomination. And, I think I&rsquo;m qualified to do the job. (5:30)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>Some people think you&rsquo;re just in it to be vice president or cabinet and that you&rsquo;re not going to be too critical of Jeb because in the end he might pick you. I don&rsquo;t put a lot of stock into this. (14:26)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Fiorina:&nbsp;</strong>You know, Laura, if I may say, and I don&rsquo;t say this very often. The people who keep saying I&rsquo;m in this for Vice President, that&rsquo;s sexist. Okay? I am as qualified a candidate as anyone running. No one talks about the men being in it to be VP. I&rsquo;m not in it to be VP. I&rsquo;m in this to win this job and to do this job. (14:38)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Carly:-No-One-Talks-About-the-Men-Running-for-VP/-825040941044004075.htmlStaff2015-09-02T15:28:00ZKasich Not Familiar with 14th Amendment; Says Americans Should Be More GratefulStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Kasich-Not-Familiar-with-14th-Amendment;-Says-Americans-Should-Be-More-Grateful/495505428648160685.html2015-09-01T17:34:00Z2015-09-01T17:34:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on&nbsp;<em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, Gov. John Kasich (R-OH) revealed his lack of understanding regarding the controversial debate over birthright citizenship. Ingraham pointed to the&nbsp;<a href="http://cis.org/birthright-citizenship-for-visitors" target="_blank">CIS study</a>, stating between 300-400,000 children are born annually in the United States to illegal immigrants. Kasich responded, touting the &lsquo;law of the land,&rsquo; saying, &ldquo;We have laws here that say if you&rsquo;re born in America you become a citizen.&rdquo; The Ohio governor was seemingly unaware of the Citizenship Clause within the 14<sup>th</sup>&nbsp;Amendment, written by Howard Jacob, who himself said the amendment was not intended to apply to foreigners.</p>
<p>Kasich&rsquo;s lack of clarity regarding his understanding of the 14<sup>th</sup>&nbsp;Amendment is nothing new for the governor, who has <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/19/politics/john-kasich-for-birthright-citizenship/" target="_blank">dismissed</a>&nbsp;the issue as a &ldquo;stumbling block&rdquo; and a &ldquo;wrench&rdquo; in efforts to achieve immigration reform. This dismissal may, however, be an attempt to brush off his previous support for ending birthright citizenship; during his time in Congress, Kasich co-sponsored legislation that would have ended the practice of birthright citizenship, as it is currently understood. In a CNN interview last month, Kasich explained, &ldquo;I was a congressman, you put your name on a hundred bills just to make somebody happy,&rdquo; sending the message voters should only consult Kasich&rsquo;s political track record when it will boost his standing in the polls.</p>
<p>Following Ingraham&rsquo;s explanation of the Citizenship Clause, along with examples of maternity hotels in Long Beach, Arizona, and Texas, Kasich completely diminished the importance of the issue, saying, &ldquo;people have to count their blessings here in the United States.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Partial Transcript&nbsp;<strong><a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjQ3Mw==" target="_blank">[LISTEN]</a></strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>This is Census Bureau numbers, or CIS numbers. There are 300,000 children who are born in the United States each year, neither parent an American citizen. What&rsquo;s your reaction to that? (4:30)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Kasich:&nbsp;</strong>Well, I mean, we have laws here that say that if you&rsquo;re born here in America you become a citizen. (4:41)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>There&rsquo;s actually no law that says that. There&rsquo;s no law that says that. (4:51)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Kasich:&nbsp;</strong>Well, I think if you&rsquo;re born here, my understanding is, I thought it was in the 14<sup>th</sup>&nbsp;amendment that says equal protection, if you&rsquo;re born here, you become a citizen. Am I wrong on that? If I&rsquo;m wrong on it, I&rsquo;ll be glad to&hellip; (4:52)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>There&rsquo;s a Citizenship Clause in the 14<sup>th</sup>&nbsp;amendment, written by Howard Jacob, who himself said it was never meant to apply to foreigners, neither parent being an American citizen. It was directed towards the slaves of course, who were being continued to be abused in our society, who people wanted to consider less than an American citizen. And, they were subject to the jurisdiction therof, which is the key phrase in that Constitutional provision. I think, we can quibble about the phrasing of the Constitution and what it really means, I think what&rsquo;s happened and, again I don&rsquo;t want to make this about Trump, this is about you, but I think the reason people are so frustrated, they&rsquo;re frustrated, Governor, is things don&rsquo;t seem fair. For people to come here, and, frankly Bush was right, a lot of folks who come here are Asians, they have birth hotels in Long beach and Arizona, and Texas, a lot of people come here because when they get that American passport for their kid, that&rsquo;s an anchor. And, people say we&rsquo;re not going to use anchor baby, that&rsquo;s rude. Why is it rude? It&rsquo;s a phrase, because that&rsquo;s how people use birthright in this country to stay here and to be able to say, look, you&rsquo;re not going to separate families are you, governor, that would be horrible. (5:04)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Kasich:&nbsp;</strong>Let me just say something, you know, people are frustrated, but you know what, people also have to count their blessings here in the United States of America. My father carried mail on his back, you came from humble beginnings, you&rsquo;re one of the most popular radio talk show opinion leaders in the country, you&rsquo;re on Fox News with O&rsquo;Reilly, you subsitute for him. I&rsquo;m running for President of the United States. We&rsquo;ve got problems in this country, but we ought to start counting some of our blessings. (6:21)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>So, you&rsquo;re thinking people are upset for no reason? They haven&rsquo;t gotten a wage increase in 17 years, governor. (6:51)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Kasich:&nbsp;</strong>No, no, no. You know what, no, I don&rsquo;t like that. And, that&rsquo;s because we&rsquo;ve had bad economic policies. But, we have a lot of good in America and we spend an awful lot of time in this country now talking about all the bad. We ought to at least spend 25% of our time talking about some of the great things that happen. Talk about the advances in medical care, the advances in education. (6:57)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</blockquote> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Kasich-Not-Familiar-with-14th-Amendment;-Says-Americans-Should-Be-More-Grateful/495505428648160685.htmlStaff2015-09-01T17:34:00ZBaier: GOP Voters Not Just Anti-Establishment, but Anti-BushStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Baier:-GOP-Voters-Not-Just-Anti-Establishment,-but-Anti-Bush/962395550543050417.html2015-09-01T16:22:00Z2015-09-01T16:22:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on&nbsp;<em>The Laura Ingraham Show,&nbsp;</em>Ingraham discussed Jeb&rsquo;s drastic drop in the polls with Bret Baier, host of Fox News Channel&rsquo;s&nbsp;<em>Special Report.</em>&nbsp;Across the country, Jeb has failed to maintain high polling numbers, particularly in Iowa, where the former Florida governor is now sitting at 5%. His numbers have also decreased by over 50% in New Hampshire, where he now holds a meager 9%, down from 17%. Baier said this &ldquo;stunning&rdquo; decrease in polls is not only attributable to an anti-establishment feeling among voters, but a specifically &ldquo;anti-Bush&rdquo; feeling.</p>
<p>Baier questioned Jeb&rsquo;s decision to flaunt his endorsement from former House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, in Virginia at a time when 70% of likely Republican caucusgoers have a negative feeling about the Republican Congress. The decision, according to Baier, is &ldquo;really quite something,&rdquo; for a candidate whose poll numbers clearly indicate he needs to be courting voters, not alienating them.</p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjQ3MQ==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></span><strong>&nbsp;</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>When we dig further into these polls, I think the story for anyone who wants to really write it, is the cratering of Jeb Bush. I mean, he&rsquo;s at 5% in the Iowa poll, the Real Clear Politics average has him up at 9.7% nationally, and in the Iowa average he&rsquo;s not even in the top five. In the New Hampshire average, he&rsquo;s down to 9, where before he was up at 17%. (4:51)</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div>
<p><strong>Baier:&nbsp;</strong>It&rsquo;s stunning. It&rsquo;s not only an anti-establishment vote, it&rsquo;s also really an anti-Bush feeling that you know, Quinnipiac had a poll that says what&rsquo;s the one word that stands out in your mind about anybody, and the word for Jeb Bush was &ldquo;Bush.&rdquo; And, that says a lot. It also says a lot that he did this Eric Cantor endorsement touting in Virginia, which was really shocking if you think about it. If you looked at that Monmouth poll, or rather the Des Moines Register poll in Iowa, it said that some 70% have really bad feelings about the Republican Congress. These are voters &ndash; likely Republican caucus goers. 70% have a bad feeling about the GOP Congress and in that environment to tout the former House Majority Leader who lost in Virginia, as a stand up for your campaign is really quite something. (5:22)</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Baier:-GOP-Voters-Not-Just-Anti-Establishment,-but-Anti-Bush/962395550543050417.htmlStaff2015-09-01T16:22:00ZBlack Lives Matter, But What About Cops?Staffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Black-Lives-Matter,-But-What-About-Cops/890493546151301076.html2015-08-31T18:14:00Z2015-08-31T18:14:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/31/suspect-in-execution-style-slaying-of-texas-deputy-faces-arraignment/" target="_blank">Friday&nbsp;night</a>, Harris County Sheriff Darren Goforth was tragically murdered when 15 rounds were fired into his back at a Chevron station. Shannon J. Miles, 30, was arrested&nbsp;on Saturday&nbsp;morning, facing capital murder charges.</p>
<p>Sheriff Ron Hickman has said, &ldquo;our assumption is that [Goforth] was a target because he wore a uniform.&rdquo; This tragedy has re-ignited controversy over the activist group, Black Lives Matter, as many voice concerns over the safety of cops. KPRC-TV legal analyst Brian Wice addressed the shooter&rsquo;s motive saying, &ldquo;The shooter in this case didn&rsquo;t see black, he didn&rsquo;t see white; he saw blue.&rdquo;</p>
<p>This shooting closely follows the<a href="http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/26/war-on-cops-cop-murdered-in-louisiana-is-9th-police-death-for-state-this-year/" target="_blank">&nbsp;murder</a>&nbsp;of Officer Henry Nelson in Louisiana, the ninth cop murdered this year in LA alone. As &ldquo;Black Lives Matter&rdquo; touts messages of &ldquo;justice&rdquo; and &ldquo;safety,&rdquo; law enforcement agents across the country fear for their safety. Sheriff Hickman rightly said, &ldquo;We&rsquo;ve heard Black Lives Matter, All Lives Matter. Well, cops&rsquo; lives matter too.&rdquo;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Black-Lives-Matter,-But-What-About-Cops/890493546151301076.htmlStaff2015-08-31T18:14:00ZSantorum: There is 'Radical Confusion' in Hillary's MindStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Santorum:-There-is-Radical-Confusion-in-Hillarys-Mind/-921095779058341748.html2015-08-28T15:46:00Z2015-08-28T15:46:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today, Rick Santorum addressed Hillary Clinton&rsquo;s&nbsp;<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/27/politics/hillary-clinton-republicans-terrorist-groups/" target="_blank">comments</a>&nbsp;likening those who hold conservative views on abortion to &ldquo;terrorist groups.&rdquo; In response, Santorum said he would like to see Hillary be &ldquo;as hard on the terrorists as she is on those who respect the dignity of all human life.&rdquo; He pointed to the atrocious treatment of women in the Middle East, which Hillary has failed to address, claiming her comments regarding pro-life conservatives suggest <a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjQ0NQ==" target="_blank">&ldquo;radical confusion that goes on in Hillary Clinton&rsquo;s mind&rdquo; and that &ldquo;she&rsquo;s someone who doesn&rsquo;t have any idea what she&rsquo;s talking about.&rdquo;</a></p>
<p>Santorum is one of just four presidential candidates who signed a<a href="https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/four-gop-presidential-candidates-out-of-17-sign-pledge-to-defend-natural-ma" target="_blank">&nbsp;pledge</a>&nbsp;by the National Organization of Marriage, pledging to define marriage as between a man and woman, as well as to repeal the Supreme Court Obergefell decision. The presidential hopeful posed questions to the candidates refusing to sign with NOM, asking, if you won&rsquo;t sign this pledge, &ldquo;Why are you running for president? Why do you believe you&rsquo;re a conservative?&rdquo;</p>
<p>Although he is polling at a meager 1%, Santorum remains hopefully about his campaign as the second debate approaches, claiming he &ldquo;rose from the ashes&rdquo; in 2012 and plans to do so again.</p>
<blockquote><br /></blockquote> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Santorum:-There-is-Radical-Confusion-in-Hillarys-Mind/-921095779058341748.htmlStaff2015-08-28T15:46:00ZJeb Sides With Ramos; Earns Endorsement from CantorStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Jeb-Sides-With-Ramos;-Earns-Endorsement-from-Cantor/-649566044584738413.html2015-08-28T15:05:00Z2015-08-28T15:05:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Donald Trump is taking heat after Univision reporter Jorge Ramos was escorted out of his press conference&nbsp;on Tuesday&nbsp;night. Ramos who, without being called upon began grandstanding and heckling the GOP frontrunner, was escorted out of the event. Yesterday, at a town hall event, establishment favorite, Jeb Bush,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/08/27/jeb-bush-sides-with-jorge-ramos-over-donald-trump-deserved-a-little-more-respect/" target="_blank">said</a>&nbsp;Ramos should have been &ldquo;treated with a little more respect&rdquo; by Donald Trump.</p>
<p>Jeb&rsquo;s defense of the leftwing news anchor was followed by an&nbsp;<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/27/politics/jeb-bush-eric-cantor-endorsement/" target="_blank">endorsement</a>&nbsp;by former House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor. Cantor said in a statement, &ldquo;Governor Bush is a true conservative leader with a long-term vision for this country and the practical know-how to implement it.&rdquo; Last year, Cantor received a strong message from conservatives when the Virginia congressman lost a primary election to college professor Dave Brat. Although his endorsement of Jeb comes as no surprise, Cantor&rsquo;s support will undoubtedly further alienate the grassroots as Jeb continues to slip in the polls.</p>
<blockquote><br /></blockquote> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Jeb-Sides-With-Ramos;-Earns-Endorsement-from-Cantor/-649566044584738413.htmlStaff2015-08-28T15:05:00ZCallers: Ramos is the Al Sharpton of the Hispanic CommunityStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Callers:-Ramos-is-the-Al-Sharpton-of-the-Hispanic-Community/-577450650754136024.html2015-08-27T16:45:00Z2015-08-27T16:45:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on&nbsp;<em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, callers from across the country responded to Jorge Ramos&rsquo; grandstanding during Trump&rsquo;s recent rally in Iowa. One caller, Matt Rodriguez, filtered through comments on Univision&rsquo;s website, revealing 90% of the Hispanics are blasting the Mexican activist, calling him stupid and uneducated. Further, Rodriguez claimed the 75% of Hispanics in Ramos' Univision poll are illegal immigrants, not American citizens, a fact Ramos conveniently left out. The caller also applauded Trump for having Ramos thrown out of the press conference saying &ldquo;he got what he deserved,&rdquo; pointing out that Ramos has previously been thrown out of a conference in Mexico and has been lying in the aftermath of his "eviction" from Trump's conference.</p>
<p>A second caller, Matt, shared Rodriguez&rsquo;s view that Ramos is essentially viewed as &ldquo;the Al Sharpton of Hispanics.&rdquo; Matt, who grew up in El Salvador and speaks fluent Spanish, said that non-Mexicans view Univision as the &ldquo;nationalist channel of Mexico,&rdquo; and outside Mexico, Ramos and Univision hold very little credibility.</p>
<span class="s1">Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/calloftheday?pid=22435" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></span><strong>&nbsp;</strong>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>Let&rsquo;s go to Carlos Rodriguez. You&rsquo;re on the Univision website, as am I, and what are you seeing there? (0:04)</p>
<p><strong>Rodriguez (Caller #1):&nbsp;</strong>Actually, I&rsquo;ve been browsing through all the Hispanic social media websites, but I&rsquo;m astounded by the innovative comments by people who read the website. And, 90% of the Hispanics are blasting Jorge Ramos, calling him an idiot, stupid, uneducated. They are calling him an activist, as you said, and they have asked him not to try to be the Al Sharpton of the Latino community. It&rsquo;s ridiculous what he did, in my opinion Jorge Ramos tried to disrupt the conference and he got what he deserved. Then he says 75% of the poll conducted by Univision, he forgot that that 75% were all illegals. He did not mention that. That&rsquo;s my belief. And, I believe that Jorge Ramos owes Trump an apology. He also should give Trump the benefit of the doubt, because Trump&rsquo;s, one of Trump&rsquo;s policies on immigration is if he becomes president he&rsquo;s going to kick them out and he&rsquo;s going to bring them back in. And, that&rsquo;s exactly what Trump did to him. He kicked him out and he brought him back in. He should be thanking Donald Trump, because at least he&rsquo;s sticking by his word. He brought him back in. Oh, by the way, Jorge Ramos was in fact ejected, or thrown out, I don&rsquo;t know if he got ejected out of a soccer game, but he was thrown out of a conference in Mexico a few years ago. So, he&rsquo;s lying right there. (0:07)</p>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>Let&rsquo;s go to Matt in Nashville, line one, Matt. (1:55)</p>
<p><strong>Matt (Caller #2):&nbsp;</strong>Hey, Laura. I was listening to your exchange with Carlos, and I&rsquo;m a missionary kid, grew up in El Salvador, so I have a very good understanding of the Hispanic culture in general. I&rsquo;m actually a fluent Spanish speaker as well. I just wanted to make the comment that in the rest of Latin America, so non-Mexicans, they view Univision as basically the nationalist channel of Mexico, and it holds very little credibility south of Kiaba. And, Jorge Ramos is basically viewed as, I think he made the comment, like the Al Sharpton for the Hispanics. That&rsquo;s almost accurate. But, he only represents a small segment, I think, of Mexicans in the sense that in central and South America, Univision and Jorge Ramos hold zero credibility. And, those comments you were talking about on that article, they were mainly saying, hey, Jorge Ramos, you need to shut up, all you&rsquo;re doing is causing more problems. (2:02)</p>
<blockquote><br /></blockquote> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Callers:-Ramos-is-the-Al-Sharpton-of-the-Hispanic-Community/-577450650754136024.htmlStaff2015-08-27T16:45:00ZSheriff Clarke: Media is Giving "Notoriety" to VA KillerStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Sheriff-Clarke:-Media-is-Giving-Notoriety-to-VA-Killer/10678416743782352.html2015-08-27T16:00:00Z2015-08-27T16:00:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Sheriff David Clarke joined&nbsp;<em>The Laura Ingraham Show&nbsp;</em>today to reflect on the horrific shooting of reporters Alison Parker and Adam Ward in Roanoke, Virginia. <a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjQzMw==" target="_blank">Clarke believes the shooting is being overplayed by the news media, which &ldquo;gives the killer, this vicious killer the notoriety he couldn&rsquo;t find while he was alive.&rdquo;</a> Rather than presenting it as a local tragedy, Clarke says the public can look forward to hearing the &ldquo;psycho babble&rdquo; from psychiatrists and gun control advocates. As the media poses question after question about what could have been done to prevent this tragedy and what warning signs were overlooked, Clarke concluded, &ldquo;there were no warning signs and there was nothing, unfortunately, there isn&rsquo;t much you can do to prevent.&rdquo;</p>
<p>In responding to the tragedy, Sheriff Clarke said, &ldquo;we don&rsquo;t need knee-jerk reactions, we don&rsquo;t need gun control, we don&rsquo;t need to turn the Constitution on its head, we don&rsquo;t need to lash out at each other, like that crazy inane idiot from Black Lies, l-i-e-s.&rdquo; He does, however, predict that after 72 hours, the hysteria will begin to wind down and the killer will stop receiving the attention he desperately craved.</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Sheriff-Clarke:-Media-is-Giving-Notoriety-to-VA-Killer/10678416743782352.htmlStaff2015-08-27T16:00:00ZTrump Reconciles with Fox, Calls to Defund Planned ParenthoodStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Trump-Reconciles-with-Fox,-Calls-to-Defund-Planned-Parenthood/220718901447137722.html2015-08-26T19:45:00Z2015-08-26T19:45:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p class="p1"><span class="s1">On today&rsquo;s program, presidential candidate Donald Trump announced his truce with Fox News following his ongoing &ldquo;death struggle&rdquo; with Megyn Kelly, saying he has &ldquo;much bigger things to thing about.&rdquo; Trump also revealed he spoke with Roger Ailes, who he called a &ldquo;good friend.&rdquo;</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">Earlier this month, Trump said there were &ldquo;two Planned Parenthoods&rdquo; and was hesitant to defund the organization entirely. However, today, following the release of the eighth video by Center for Medical Progress, the GOP frontrunner called for PPFA to be fully defunded. Trump said, &ldquo;These people, what they say, it&rsquo;s like they&rsquo;re selling parts to an automobile or something&hellip;It&rsquo;s a terrible situation.&rdquo;</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjQyMw==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></span><strong>&nbsp;</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1"><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>Donald, you know I work for Fox. And, I&rsquo;ve worked for Fox for years. And, this big death struggle between you and Kelly, I don&rsquo;t want to get into all the details&hellip; (12:27)</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1"><strong>Trump:&nbsp;</strong>Not a big deal. Not a death struggle. (12:41)</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1"><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>You&rsquo;re so powerful on the stump, and you&rsquo;re getting such huge crowds. The kind of late night tweets reacting to what&rsquo;s happening on her show, I mean, I personally don&rsquo;t think that&rsquo;s helpful. You don&rsquo;t need my advice, I mean who the heck am I, but I just think your message on trade and globalism and immigration and middle class renewal is really a serious platform of ideas&hellip; (12:41)</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1"><strong>Trump:&nbsp;</strong>Actually, I watched her show last night. She was very nice and I appreciated it. And, she had Frank Luntz on who said I scored the highest score that he&rsquo;s ever had. I said, what&rsquo;s going on over here, what&rsquo;s happened? But, Frank Luntz was another one I wasn&rsquo;t so thrilled with&hellip; (13:08)</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1"><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>Are you going to keep tweeting these bimbo back in town kind of comments? (13:22)</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1"><strong>Trump:&nbsp;</strong>No, I have much bigger things to think about. Honestly. They made a big deal out of that and I just don&rsquo;t see it. That was a retweet. But, you know, I do have a lot of things that I want to get out, like China is absolutely destroying us and now they&rsquo;re pulling us down even from the big economic picture, which I said was going to happen and I said it on your show two years ago it was going to happen. I&rsquo;ve been telling you this was going to happen. We&rsquo;re so intertwined and I believe in free trade, but we need smart negotiators and we need smart leaders. (13:26)</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1"><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>So this Fox thing, are we good now? (14:01)</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1"><strong>Trump:&nbsp;</strong>Roger Ailes is great, Roger Ailes is a special guy, a good friend of mine. We just spoke two minutes ago, I mean Roger Ailes is a great guy. And, no I have no problem. And, I actually liked her show very much last night, if you want to know the truth. (14:03)</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1"><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>Yesterday, Planned Parenthood was exposed again by an 8</span><span class="s2"><sup>th</sup></span><span class="s1">&nbsp;video realeased by Center for Medical Progress. Do you still believe there are two Planned Parenthood&rsquo;s or is it time to defund this organization? (15:13)</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1"><strong>Trump:&nbsp;</strong>Well, you should defund anyway because they&rsquo;re doing the abortions. It&rsquo;s like an abortion factory, which is terrible. So, you should defund anyway. But, those videos are horrible. Every time you see them they get worse and worse. And, it&rsquo;s not only that, the messengers are so bad. These people, what they say, it&rsquo;s like they&rsquo;re selling parts to an automobile or something. It&rsquo;s a terrible situation going on with Planned Parenthood. (15:26)</span></p>
</blockquote> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Trump-Reconciles-with-Fox,-Calls-to-Defund-Planned-Parenthood/220718901447137722.htmlStaff2015-08-26T19:45:00ZTrump: Jeb Tied to Donors, Failing Because of His BrotherStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Trump:-Jeb-Tied-to-Donors,-Failing-Because-of-His-Brother/299072585853925449.html2015-08-26T16:24:00Z2015-08-26T16:24:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on&nbsp;<em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, GOP frontrunner Donald Trump, discussed Jeb Bush&rsquo;s upcoming fundraiser, which will be headlined by the candidate&rsquo;s older brother, former President George W. Bush. Trump said, &ldquo;part of the reason [Jeb] is failing is because of his brother,&rdquo; suggesting his brother&rsquo;s attempts to rescue his failing campaign will not be successful. He then addressed Bush&rsquo;s ties to donors, claiming, &ldquo;I don&rsquo;t care how much money they raise, he&rsquo;s not going to set the country right again.&rdquo;</p>
<p>&nbsp;Trump also addressed the Trans Pacific Partnership, which he emphatically saying, &ldquo;it&rsquo;s a terrible deal and it&rsquo;s a stupid deal and it&rsquo;s being perpetrated by the lobbyists and the donors and the people who really take care of these politicians.&rdquo; Although China is not initially a member, Trump predicts they will join the deal as soon as it&rsquo;s over and continue to take advantage of the United States.</p>
<p>Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjQyMw==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>Former President George W. Bush I snow going to headline a Jeb fundraiser on&nbsp;Sept. 10&nbsp;in New York City. Before, we had heard that he wasn&rsquo;t going to be all that active in the campaign, obviously he supported his brother, but the nostalgia of September 11<sup>th</sup>, obviously the eve of the September 11<sup>th</sup>&nbsp;attacks, what does this say to you? (5:06)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Trump:&nbsp;</strong>Well, Jeb is failing. And, part of the reason he&rsquo;s failing is because of his brother. His brother went in and attacked the wrong people. He broke up Iraq and destabilized the Middle East and, as you know because you know very well, I&rsquo;ve been against that war and I&rsquo;m a very militaristic person. I&rsquo;m going to make our military so strong and I&rsquo;m going to take care of our vets so good. But, you have to attack the right target and ideally, if you&rsquo;re strong enough, you don&rsquo;t have to attack anybody because no one is going to mess with you &ndash; that&rsquo;s where I want to be. But, you know, the brother destabilized the Middle East, the brother as been, you know, I&rsquo;m not a big fan. So, he&rsquo;s coming and he&rsquo;s going to have to help his brother because Jeb is a very low energy person and he&rsquo;s just not going to set the...I don&rsquo;t care how much money they raise, he&rsquo;s not going to set the country right again. He&rsquo;s just not going to do it. (5:33)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>Virginia and North Carolina are now in discussions about implementing, basically a requirement, a loyalty oath that they&rsquo;re going to require all candidates agree to to be on the primary ballot. That any individual in the Republican primary has to pledge not to run as a third party. If they go forward with that, what will your reaction be? (6:17)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Trump:&nbsp;</strong>Well, I&rsquo;d have to study it. I&rsquo;m hearing about it now, yesterday for the first time, and I&rsquo;d have to study it. But, I don&rsquo;t see it as a problem because I obviously, I&rsquo;m leading in every poll. We&rsquo;re leading in Iowa, we&rsquo;re leading in New Hampshire, we&rsquo;re leading in South Carolina, we&rsquo;re leading in North Carolina, we&rsquo;re leading everywhere. In Nevada. And, we&rsquo;re leading in every single poll. One poll came out yesterday, the Gravis poll, it was 40%, more than 40%. (6:42)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>My point is the Republican establishment, which in my mind vociferously supports Bush, I don&rsquo;t care what they say. Most of them are in the pocket of the Bush&rsquo;s. My point is, look at what they did to preserve the seat of Thad Cochran down in Mississippi. Haley Barbour&rsquo;s group pamphleted black neighborhoods with these flyers indicating that McDaniel was a racist. They&rsquo;re going to pull out every procedural trick, every thing they can do to derail your nomination. Now we just learned that Colorado is cancelling it&rsquo;s presidential vote for the 2016 caucus. They&rsquo;re just canceling it all together. So, this is the kind of stuff they&rsquo;re going to do. (7:09)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>Do you think [Jeb] should drop out of the race now, at this point? (9:18)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Trump:&nbsp;</strong>I don&rsquo;t know, I certainly wouldn&rsquo;t be the one to say that. But, he certainly is not been taking the ball. He was at the border the other day and what he did was take the whole thing in Asians having to do with the anchor babies, he shifted away from Hispanics and brought in the Asians. Now, the Asians are furious and he has a massive editorial today in the NY Times like, what&rsquo;s wrong with you. What he tried to do was put it onto Asians, and now he&rsquo;s lost the Asain vote. So, I don&rsquo;t know. Does he know what he&rsquo;s doing? I have no idea. I can only tell you, I just want to run my own campaign, and we&rsquo;ve gotten by far the biggest crowds, biggest response. (9:17)</p>
</blockquote>
<p><em>Responding to Jeb&rsquo;s criticism on the immigration plan, &ldquo;It&rsquo;s not a practical plan&rdquo;</em></p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Ingraham:</strong>&nbsp;Your reaction to that. (10:40)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Trump:&nbsp;</strong>My plan is very practical, and as you know, and most of your circles, you people love my plan. They&rsquo;re loving it. They&rsquo;re not liking it, they&rsquo;re loving it. They love the wall, they love the fact that you have to be legal to be in the country. We have a thing called illegal, they&rsquo;re illegal. And, we can expedite the good people. And, there are plenty of good people, a lot of them. But, we can expedite the good people coming back in if we have to, and maybe we will have to do that. But, it&rsquo;ll be a very humane plan. It&rsquo;ll be something that&rsquo;ll work and it&rsquo;ll make us all feel better about our country. And, it can be done. You know, we&rsquo;re spending $130 billion a year on the problems that we have with illegal immigration. (10:41)<strong> <br /></strong></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>The Trans Pacific Partnership is being secretly negotiated. You have to go into a room in the basement of the Capitol. You can&rsquo;t bring in a notepad if you&rsquo;re a Congressman. Can&rsquo;t bring in any device to record anything that&rsquo;s on these sheets of paper. And, like the WTO, China initially won&rsquo;t be a member of this global set of rules. (14:19)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Trump:&nbsp;</strong>But, they&rsquo;ll be going in as soon as it&rsquo;s done because they know it&rsquo;s a good deal for them. They&rsquo;re going to go in and they&rsquo;re going to take advantage of us like everyone else does and it&rsquo;s a terrible deal and it&rsquo;s a stupid deal and it&rsquo;s being perpetrated by the lobbyists and the donors and the people who really take care of these politicians. It&rsquo;s a horrible deal, and we can make a great deal, and there&rsquo;s nothing wrong with a deal. But, that particular deal is horrible. And, you watch, China will go, as soon as it&rsquo;s over, China will join the deal and totally take advantage of us because we&rsquo;re lead by people who don&rsquo;t have it. (14:42)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Trump:-Jeb-Tied-to-Donors,-Failing-Because-of-His-Brother/299072585853925449.htmlStaff2015-08-26T16:24:00ZVitter: McConnell Runs Away from Controversial LegislationStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Vitter:-McConnell-Runs-Away-from-Controversial-Legislation/619240361355110286.html2015-08-25T17:32:00Z2015-08-25T17:32:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on&nbsp;<em>The Laura Ingraham Show</em>, Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) addressed the rising controversy over birthright citizenship. For years, Sen. Vitter has pushed legislation to clarify the 14<sup>th</sup>&nbsp;amendment, as, according to the Louisiana Senator, there is nothing in the amendment mandating birthright citizenship. Regarding his bill, Vitter criticized the Republican leadership, as he has struggling for a vote. He said, the legislation has not been brought to the floor because &ldquo;the political establishment on both sides, certainly including Mitch McConnell, they run away&rdquo; from controversial legislation.</p>
<p>Vitter also addressed the upcoming presidential election, saying people across the political spectrum are sick and tired of the political establishment, which accounts for Trump&rsquo;s high levels of support. In contrast, Vitter said Jeb Bush has not been generating buzz in Louisiana due to his deep ties to the establishment.</p>
<p>Partial Transcript: <strong>[<a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjQwMw==" target="_blank">LISTEN</a>]</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Ingraham:</strong>&nbsp;Senator, who&rsquo;s right about this birthright citizen question? Jeb Bush, yesterday said this would be violating the civil rights of all of these young people in the United States now or anyone successively born in this country to remove their citizenship. (4:12)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Vitter:&nbsp;</strong>I think that&rsquo;s ridiculous&mdash;I don&rsquo;t think anything in the Constitution, including the 14<sup>th</sup>&nbsp;amendment requires, mandates birthright citizenship. And I think if you read the exact text of the amendment that becomes clear, becomes even more clear when you look at the legislative history how other groups have been handled over time and how this has impacted them, including American Indians being recognized as citizens, how we deal with diplomats who live in this country, and have babies in this country, etc. Now I&rsquo;m sure if we pass my bill, which would deny birthright citizenship statutorily, I&rsquo;m sure that will be challenged and I am sure that will go to court, but I don&rsquo;t think there is anything in the constitution that mandates birthright citizenship. (4:33)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>What&rsquo;s the hold up with Mitch McConnell? I assume you&rsquo;ve spoken to him about this what does he say? [7:53]</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Vitter:&nbsp;</strong>The hold up is what it always is often difficult to get votes period and particularly controversial stuff quite frankly the political establishment on both sides, certainly including Mitch McConnell, they run away. [7:57]</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>This is what I think has in part driven the candidacy of Donald Trump, Senator Vitter. Unlike most candidates, although Chris Christie just reamed the Republicans in congress on our show and Jeb Bush a few minutes ago, I think they see Trump, they listen to him, and he&rsquo;s kind of calling out both parties, and that&rsquo;s very attractive to a lot of folks who throw their hands up at Washington DC. [8:11]</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Vitter:&nbsp;</strong>Laura you&rsquo;re exactly right, I think that is why Donald Trump is so attractive to so many people because he is full out at war with the political establishment, and that&rsquo;s what people want, understandably so. I think its also related to why someone like Bernie Sanders is doing so well, people across the political spectrum are sick and tired of the political establishment, and that certainly includes real conservatives view of most Republicans in Washington. [9:11]</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>In Louisiana, tell us what folks are saying about Jeb Bush&rsquo;s candidacy down there? [9:43]</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Vitter:&nbsp;</strong>Well, quite frankly they&rsquo;re not talking much about it so that&rsquo;s the first observation. Secondly, when he comes up I think he&rsquo;s viewed as the political establishment there&rsquo;s a whole lot of sentiment like I&rsquo;m describing against that, that&rsquo;s not universal but there is a whole lot of sentiment against that, and again that&rsquo;s why Donald Trump has so many people who support him. That&rsquo;s very attractive and created a buzz. To give him credit, he puts the immigration debate on the map in terms of presidential discussion, it should have been there from the very beginning, it&rsquo;s a huge issue, it&rsquo;s a huge problem, it should&rsquo;ve been there and it only is because of him. [10:03]</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</blockquote> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Vitter:-McConnell-Runs-Away-from-Controversial-Legislation/619240361355110286.htmlStaff2015-08-25T17:32:00ZFormer Attorney General: Hillary Scandal Has Reached "Critical Mass"Staffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Former-Attorney-General:-Hillary-Scandal-Has-Reached-Critical-Mass/-566213871375805350.html2015-08-25T16:36:00Z2015-08-25T16:36:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on the&nbsp;<em>Laura Ingraham Show</em>, Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey addressed the Hillary Clinton email scandal, which he believes has reached &ldquo;critical mass,&rdquo; because there are so many moving parts. Mukasey places a lot of confidence in the Justice Department and the FBI, firmly believing that they will continue to pursue the investigation. Mukasey speculated the chances of the Chinese government hacking into Hillary Clinton&rsquo;s private server are high, <a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjQwMQ==" target="_blank">saying &ldquo;if they can get into the records of the Office of Personnel Management, I would think it would be child&rsquo;s play for them to get into a private server run by a commercial company.&rdquo;</a></p>
<p>Ingraham questioned Mukasey about an upcoming report about illegal immigrants holding federal law enforcement positions whose parents were involved in terrorism. Although Mukasey had not heard of the report, he said these facts would bother him deeply, particularly given the current administrations ties to Muslim brotherhood related organizations. The former attorney general confessed, &ldquo;It disturbs me greatly.&rdquo;</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Former-Attorney-General:-Hillary-Scandal-Has-Reached-Critical-Mass/-566213871375805350.htmlStaff2015-08-25T16:36:00ZChristie Moves Past Trump, Slams JebStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Christie-Moves-Past-Trump,-Slams-Jeb/-433805240175817125.html2015-08-25T16:31:00Z2015-08-25T16:31:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, Gov.&nbsp;Chris&nbsp;Christie&nbsp;(R-NJ) compared himself to competitor, Jeb Bush, claiming the former Florida governor hasn&rsquo;t been in a relevant campaign in over a decade.&nbsp;Christie&nbsp;contrasted himself with Jeb, touting his successes in New Jersey against a Democratic legislature. The New Jersey governor, who is currently polling at 3%, explained that he, unlike any other current or former governor in the presidential race, has faced a Democratic legislature for his entire governorship.&nbsp;Christie&nbsp;said this experience leaves him &ldquo;battletested&rdquo; for the presidency, preparing him to be the &ldquo;tough, strong, direct leader&rdquo; the country needs.</p>
<p>Christie&nbsp;also dismissed accusations that he is a moderate, saying they are &ldquo;dead wrong.&rdquo; He again pointed to his record as Governor of New Jersey; American for Tax Reform came out last week confirming&nbsp;Christie&nbsp;cut taxes more than any governor in American history. Further,&nbsp;Christie&nbsp;eliminated over 800 programs, cut spending, claiming spending is $2.5 billion less in discretionary spending today than when he became governor. According to&nbsp;Christie, &ldquo;these are the credentials of a conservative Republican who has governed in one of the toughest states in America to govern as a conservative Republican.&rdquo;</p>
<p><strong>Partial Transcript: <a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjQwNQ==" target="_blank">[LISTEN]</a></strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>Jeb goes down to the border yesterday, not sure he would have gone if Trump hadn&rsquo;t been making all this noise about immigration, but never the less he goes down to McCowan, Texas where all the action is, he actually added this:<em>&nbsp;Jeb Speaking in Spanish at the Border.&nbsp;</em>What&rsquo;s your reaction to Jeb at the border yesterday? (3:15)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Christie:&nbsp;</strong>The problem is this, when you haven&rsquo;t been in a relevant campaign as a Republican since 1998, you&rsquo;re going to continue to make the kind of mistakes that we see Gov. Bush making. The fact is we&rsquo;re re-litigating the Iraq War, something that we shouldn&rsquo;t be doing because of how Gov. Bush is talking about it. Now, we&rsquo;re having the comments he made regarding folks of Asian descent. We&rsquo;ve had the comments he&rsquo;s made regarding a number of other areas regarding immigration. The fact is, if what we want to do as a Republican Party is re-litigate the old wars of the 90&rsquo;s and the 2000&rsquo;s, then Jeb is the perfect candidate. If what we want to do is actually win the presidency again, I suggest to you that we need someone who has actually been fighting these wars for the last six years, someone who has been standing up and fighting against the Democratic legislature against the public sector unions, was the first person who stood up and said the teacher&rsquo;s union is the most destructive force in public education in America, those are the kinds of things we need. And, unfortunately, listen, I like Jeb Bush. I think he&rsquo;s a very nice guy. And, he did a nice job as the governor of Florida. But, that was over a decade ago and there&rsquo;s really been nothing that&rsquo;s happened in his career from a public service perspective since. We need someone who is going to go in there and know how to fight these fights. And, I&rsquo;m a guy who has vetoed more tax increases than any governor in American history. I&rsquo;m the guy who has vetoed over 400 bills in NJ and stood up to a Democratic legislature. The Congress has failed the American people, both parties. Middle class wages are stagnant for 15 years. We need to change course here and we need someone who&rsquo;s going to be a tough, strong, direct leader, not someone who has to every day apologize for what he said yesterday. (3:43)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>What do you make of the donor class that bet so much money on Jeb Bush? Obviously all the people who aren&rsquo;t billionaires need to raise money, and you need to raise some big money for super PACs to be able to respond to negative ads, which you know the Jeb campaign is going to drop, the Bush&rsquo;s are really good at doing that. Why are donors still sticking with Jeb Bush if in fact, as you say, he&rsquo;s not really a relevant candidate for today&rsquo;s challenges and has been largely absent during the great struggles against Obamacare and all the other excesses in the Obama administration. (5:26)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Christie:&nbsp;</strong>Well, listen, if your father and your brother had been President of the United States, you&rsquo;d raise a lot of money from people who had donated a lot of money to them. This is no shock that Jeb Bush has raised multiples more than anybody else in the race, because a lot of those folks are voting based upon loyalty to President George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush. So, we understand that, we knew that all along. We can&rsquo;t be afraid of that. What we have to do is move forward and put our ideas forward. That&rsquo;s why we have put more ideas forward than any other campaign, I&rsquo;ve been speaking very plainly and directly about them. And, so, the fact is that that&rsquo;s why the donations are made. They have little to do with Jeb Bush and everything to do with his father and his brother. And, that&rsquo;s the way it goes. But, what goes along with that is our party then will have to re-litigate old wars. And, re-litigate those old wars against the Clinton&rsquo;s. I just don&rsquo;t see how that&rsquo;s good for our party and I know it&rsquo;s not good for our country. (6:09)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>They say you&rsquo;re a moderate though. Look, this reputation dogs you in conservative circles that oh, he&rsquo;s a rhino, he&rsquo;s a moderate, look at his approval rating in NJ, it&rsquo;s way low versus someone like a Kasich who has an increasing approval rating in the all important state of Ohio. So, that&rsquo;s the meme out there on you, despite the fact that I get reports from your town halls that you&rsquo;re just tearing it up at these town halls. (9:13)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Christie;&nbsp;</strong>They&rsquo;re dead wrong, Laura, because the fact is I&rsquo;m the first pro-life governor in the history of the state of New Jersey. I defunded Planned Parenthood six years ago. Americans for Tax Reform just came out last week and said that I have vetoed more tax increases than any governor in American history. They&rsquo;ve also pointed out that I eliminated over 800 programs, cut spending, spending is $2.5 billion less in discretionary spending today than it was when I became governor. I stood up and fought against the Democratic legislature, we reformed teacher tenure and brought the teacher&rsquo;s unions back into some semblance of order in New Jersey, while we&rsquo;re continuing that fight. These are the credentials of a conservative Republican who has governed in one of the toughest states in America to govern as a conservative Republican. (9:38)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>So, do you see that as a measure of how you would do against a Democrat in the general? That you&rsquo;re constantly in battle with the Democrat legislature, I believe Jeb Bush had largely a Republican legislature for his 8 years. So, you think that tests you in a way that some of these other governors aren&rsquo;t tested? (10:23)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Christie:&nbsp;</strong>I&rsquo;m battle tested, Laura. I&rsquo;ve had a Democratic majority in the legislature every minute of my governorship. None of the other governors who are running in this race, current or former, have had to deal with Democratic legislature. I&rsquo;m battle tested for Washington. (10:49)</p>
</blockquote> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Christie-Moves-Past-Trump,-Slams-Jeb/-433805240175817125.htmlStaff2015-08-25T16:31:00ZBob Costa: Trump Rally Gathers Regular Americans, Kasich Might Replace BushStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Bob-Costa:-Trump-Rally-Gathers-Regular-Americans,-Kasich-Might-Replace-Bush/386518772639569490.html2015-08-24T17:30:00Z2015-08-24T17:30:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today on the Laura Ingraham Show, Robert Costa, National Political Reporter for the Washington, discussed Trump&rsquo;s rally in Mobile, AL. Costa attended the rally last Friday, describing it in the Post as &ldquo;something between a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert and the&nbsp;Daytona 500.&rdquo;&nbsp;He said the rally was &ldquo;kooky and fun&rdquo; with a lot of energy going through the crowd as they listened to country music and Elton John, Trump&rsquo;s favorite artist. Costa reported a lot of small business owners, teachers, and regular Americans who came to see the GOP frontrunner; <a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjM4OQ==" target="_blank">this is one of many unique aspects of the Trump campaign, as he is drawing people who have not been interested in politics, people who haven&rsquo;t voted in years</a>, and is igniting a new excitement for politics.</p>
<p>In contrast, Costa feels a deep sense among Bush reporters and Bush aides that Trump is not an actual Republican, which tarnishes their views of his campaign. And, the longer Trump maintains his lead, the more flustered the Jeb campaign becomes. Costa pointed to the small plane, paid for by Jeb&rsquo;s super PAC, that flew over Trump&rsquo;s rally last week, reading &ldquo;Trump 4 Higher Taxes, Jeb 4 Prez.&rdquo; In regards to Jeb, Costa suggested Kasich may become the new establishment favorite, if the Bush campaign doesn&rsquo;t begin to gain momentum.</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Bob-Costa:-Trump-Rally-Gathers-Regular-Americans,-Kasich-Might-Replace-Bush/386518772639569490.htmlStaff2015-08-24T17:30:00ZWorld Markets Plunge As China Stocks CrashStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/World-Markets-Plunge-As-China-Stocks-Crash/-779592866458435827.html2015-08-24T17:20:00Z2015-08-24T17:20:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br>Americans woke up to bad news from China this morning as the stock market fell to levels unseen since 2008. The Dow is coming off its worst week in four years, down 336 points, or 2 percent. The S&amp;P 500 dropped 43 points, or 2.2 percent, and the Nasdaq composite fell 91 points, or 1.9 percent, down to 4,614 points. According to Joe Kernen, host of &ldquo;The Squawk Box&rdquo; on CNBC, quick, sharp declines during a bull market serve to move stocks from weak hands to strong hands. But, what&rsquo;s really driving this transnational upheaval? An interconnected global economy where China and Asia drive the agenda. Globalism has been pushed as the best way forward, yet our plummeting stocks show a downside. <br /><br /> Although Secretary of the Treasury, Jack Lew, continues to believe China&rsquo;s markets aren&rsquo;t &lsquo;linked&rsquo; to the rest of world, Americans are beginning to wake up. What we have come to believe with the rise of China is that, for the first time in history, the state can do everything right with a controlled economy. The United States has given China the benefit of the doubt, but are beginning to realize that a small group of people in China can have a huge impact on the US. With the fall of China comes the rise of pro-business candidates, specifically Donald Trump. <br /><br /> As the market crashed, Trump took to Twitter to reiterate his message that America is too tied to China. &ldquo;Markets are crashing - all caused by poor planning and allowing China and Asia to dictate the agenda. This could get very messy!&rdquo; <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/World-Markets-Plunge-As-China-Stocks-Crash/-779592866458435827.htmlStaff2015-08-24T17:20:00ZByron York: Trump Gathers Crowd Beyond Republican BaseStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Byron-York:-Trump-Gathers-Crowd-Beyond-Republican-Base/92501631135427305.html2015-08-24T16:41:00Z2015-08-24T16:41:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Today, Byron York, joined the conversation on Donald Trump&rsquo;s recent rally in Mobile Alabama. York admitted Republicans ought to be fairly pleased with the crowd Trump drew, as a crowd of over 20,000 clearly draws from beyond the Republican base. However, he was not impressed by Trump&rsquo;s 55-minute address, which he said was &ldquo;rambling all over the place&rdquo; in &ldquo;classic Trump&rdquo; style.</p>
<p>However, <a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjM5MQ==" target="_blank">York applauded Trump for significantly moving the debate, sparking conversations about immigration</a>, not just birthright citizenship, but the issue as a whole, within the Republican Party. He referenced the Gang of 8 Bill, which would have imposed enforcement after the instant legalization of the 12 million illegals. This view has entirely changed in the Republican Party, which York attributes largely to Donald Trump.</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Byron-York:-Trump-Gathers-Crowd-Beyond-Republican-Base/92501631135427305.htmlStaff2015-08-24T16:41:00ZMike Allen: Jeb Doesn't Know How to Handle Trump; Press Admits Trump is Here to StayStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Mike-Allen:-Jeb-Doesnt-Know-How-to-Handle-Trump;-Press-Admits-Trump-is-Here-to-Stay/826174795759700233.html2015-08-21T17:02:00Z2015-08-21T17:02:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Mike Allen, Chief White House Correspondent for Politico, discussed the strategy of GOP candidate&rsquo;s against frontrunner Donald Trump. Jeb Bush, who has been touting a &ldquo;joyful&rdquo; campaign. Ingraham questioned this tactic, pointing to Bush&rsquo;s attacks on Trump and Hillary; Allen, however, defended Jeb arguing the campaign climate does not allow for Jeb to run a &ldquo;joyful&rdquo; campaign the way he would like. Ingraham predicted that if Jeb continues attacking Trump, the electorate will feel personally attacked, further dividing the party.</p>
<p>He also suggested the campaigns and the presses are finally admitting Donald Trump is not fading away in the near future, which is forcing them to adjust their tactics in an unprecedented way. He specifically referenced Ted Cruz&rsquo;s new tactic to embrace the anti-establishment spark Trump taps into, but aim to be the last conservative standing against the establishment candidate.</p>
<p><strong>Partial Transcript: <a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjM3OQ==" target="_blank">[LISTEN]</a></strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>The press ought to start going after Jeb for this claim that he&rsquo;s going to run a &ldquo;joyful&rdquo; campaign. If he&rsquo;s so joyful, why is he attacking Trump? Why does he attack Hillary? Why doesn&rsquo;t he win through joyful presentation of his ideas? Interesting question. (6:58)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Allen:&nbsp;</strong>What he said is that he wants to run a joyful campaign, and I guess we can agree that that&rsquo;s probably turning out to be more difficult than probably anybody thought it was going to. It&rsquo;ll be interesting to see how Gov. Bush plays this in the days ahead. Because Mike Murphy, who&rsquo;s running his Super PAC out in LA, is holding back from the Trump attacks saying, on the record in a very interesting interview with the Washington Post, that Trump is other people&rsquo;s problem. And, that they&rsquo;d be happy to fight Trump mano-en-mano at the end. Meanwhile, the campaign is attacking him. Now, it sounds like the Super PAC may just be playing a bit of a different game because Murphy is re-tweeting the campaign quotes. So, the point is, people are looking for their playbook against the Donald and we were hearing a lot this week from the campaigns and the news organizations. I think both the press and the other campaigns are beginning to say okay, Donald&rsquo;s here to stay, now what do we do, rather than debating, okay, when or how is he going to fade. So, Politico has a very fascinating piece up this morning about the Cruz strategy. The Cruz strategy to be the last non-establishment conservative guy standing. If whatever takes away Trump, whatever costs him his oxygen or causes him to implode, Cruz wants to be left standing as the person to fight the establishment candidate, whether that&rsquo;s Jeb or Walker or Rubio. And, he&rsquo;s doing that with focus on Iowa and the south. So, in every one of Iowa&rsquo;s 99 counties, Cruz has a minister who&rsquo;s doing his faith based outreach. You&rsquo;ve talked about on the show all of his extensive travels in the South and he is trying to, under the radar, do his organizing, line up his endorsements, get activists on his payroll, so whatever happens, then he&rsquo;ll be in position. (7:12)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>The Super PAC is going to rain down on Donald Trump and anyone else who rears his or her head in a substantial way. And, the Bush&rsquo;s are masters at saying they&rsquo;re going to keep a very nice toned debate, but they&rsquo;re going to rain down on them with negative ads. And, you can buy a lot of negative ads for $120 million. And, let&rsquo;s say they are able to knock Donald Trump out of the race. I don&rsquo;t know what happens and maybe he does it himself. But, if what happens at the end, Mike, is that a lot of people for months have heard that Donald Trump doesn&rsquo;t like immigrants, Donald Trump is a racist, Donald Trump is this, Donald Trump is that. They&rsquo;re going to feel like that&rsquo;s what they&rsquo;re being called too. And, I think that&rsquo;s going to make the party so divided going into this presidential election year that the nomination might not be worth having. If that&rsquo;s how you win against someone like Trump, where it&rsquo;s negative, negative, negative with very little substantive conversation about the issues of globalism and immigration, yet that is how I see it happening despite what you may think that Ted Cruz could do down the road. (12:52)</p>
</blockquote> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Mike-Allen:-Jeb-Doesnt-Know-How-to-Handle-Trump;-Press-Admits-Trump-is-Here-to-Stay/826174795759700233.htmlStaff2015-08-21T17:02:00ZTucker: Wake Up Jeb, It's Not 2008Staffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Tucker:-Wake-Up-Jeb,-Its-Not-2008/916382579945310055.html2015-08-20T17:08:00Z2015-08-20T17:08:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>On today&rsquo;s program, Tucker Carlson, founder and editor-in-chief of the Daily Caller, shared his perspective on Donald Trump&rsquo;s rise to the top of the GOP field. According to Carlson, the phenomenon is not about Trump, but a reflection on the failure&rsquo;s of the Republican leadership. Carlson spoke to the immense anger felt by the American people and said Jeb Bush &ldquo;has not been paying attention to the profound changes in this country.&rdquo; Ingraham and Carlson agreed Jeb, and many other consultants, have not adjusted their strategy and act as if it is still 2004. According to Carlson, &ldquo;if you&rsquo;re not responding to that, you don&rsquo;t deserve to lead. Period.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Carlson also addressed Hillary Clinton&rsquo;s presidential run in light of the growing scandal; although he agreed Elizabeth Warren could be a stronger challenger to Hillary, he doesn&rsquo;t believe she will seek the Democratic nomination. In fact, despite the scandal and her decreasing favorability, Carlson maintained Hillary would be the nominee, if for no reason other than &ldquo;there is literally nobody else.&rdquo;</p>
<p><strong>Partial Transcript: <a href="/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&amp;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yMjM2OQ==" target="_blank">[LISTEN]</a></strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Carlson:&nbsp;</strong>I came away thinking what I always think, which is that it&rsquo;s not so much about Trump, it&rsquo;s about the people who run everything and how profoundly they failed. They&rsquo;re just terrible; they&rsquo;ve just done a really bad job. If you run a campaign where you think the key to getting elected is just raising a million dollars really quick from your families previous donors, and you sign on, say Paul Wolfowitz, as one of your chief foreign policy advisors. And, your background includes getting rick quick from Lehman brothers. You decide that we need more NSA spying on ordinary Americans and you have no concept of illegal immigration, or even legal immigration has a downside. You&rsquo;re not paying attention to America. I&rsquo;m not saying you&rsquo;re a bad person, I actually know Jeb and I really like Jeb, super nice guy and smart too, but he has not been paying attention to the profound changes taking place in this country. It&rsquo;s not the same country it was in 2008. It&rsquo;s not even close. So, if you&rsquo;re not responding to that, then you don&rsquo;t deserve to lead. Period. (4:16)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>I think that a lot of these consultants, they act as if it&rsquo;s still 2004. The last really strong Republican presidential candidate was George W. Bush and the last great campaign was 2004 and Karl Rove ran it. But, the world has changed since then. Demographics have changed in the country, no doubt about it. But, people are angrier than they were in 2006 when Republicans lost the Congress and George Bush responded with the surge in Iraq. They&rsquo;re angrier than they were in 2008, they&rsquo;re angrier than they were in 2010. People are actually, I don&rsquo;t think I&rsquo;ve ever seen this level of anger from people who are not just the middle class people, I think people who are more wealthy are angry about what&rsquo;s happened to the country. (5:27)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Carlson:&nbsp;</strong>And they should be. The truth is, the way that wealth is distributed in this country is problematic. And, I say that as a life-long right-winger, advocate of the free market, beneficiary of the free market, small business owner, etc. But, if you&rsquo;ve been awake at all for the past decade you&rsquo;ve noticed that a very small number of people have gotten unbelievably rich for not doing very much. I&rsquo;m not talking innovators who create services people love, like Uber or whatever. I&rsquo;m talking about people who sift money from one pile to another and take a cut of it, which is not an immoral thing to do, but there&rsquo;s something wrong with a country where all of the richest people do that. That is not a system that is sustainable. And, by the way, it creates profound envy and anger in the sense that the system is rigged against people who don&rsquo;t fully understand finance. That&rsquo;s a lot of what&rsquo;s going on. People are just super mad about the collapse of the industrial economy on the one hand and the rise of the finance economy on the other and the refusal of the elites to acknowledge that. Even Hillary Clinton. I mean, by the way, if I was a Democrat running against Hilary Clinton, I would attack her for what she is, which is a tool of the finance community, she always has been. Bernie Sanders is a fake candidate because he&rsquo;s not actually making that case. He himself is just another insider, establishment guy posing as some type of radical. He&rsquo;s not radical at all. And, neither is she. That&rsquo;s the attack on Hillary Clinton from the outside. Jim Webb could do it if he wasn&rsquo;t so disorganized, he could actually run that campaign and make some really useful points. I wish he would. But, nobody else is saying that and people are really mad about it. (6:18)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>And, when people are called anti-immigrant or xenophobic as George W. Bush has called conservatives who are against their immigration reform, when they&rsquo;re called restrictionist or intolerant because of their views on trade, people are tired of that I think. They&rsquo;re fair minded and if trade was making American workers better off and wages were going up and you had a better chance of raising your kids in a better life than you grew up in, we wouldn&rsquo;t have Donald Trump. If the GOP establishment had done what it pledged to do and had followed the law on immigration and had respected the wishes of its own voting class, we wouldn&rsquo;t have Donald Trump to deal with. (8:04)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Carlson:&nbsp;</strong>We wouldn&rsquo;t. And, the electoral math is not that difficult. You always see these really smart people lecturing us. The Democratic Party was once the party of the working class, it was, sorry Republicans hate to admit it, but it&rsquo;s true. It no longer is. It&rsquo;s now the party of the very rich, people who either inherited their money or made it quickly and easily. And, it&rsquo;s the party of the wholly dependent on government. So, it&rsquo;s the rich and poor party. All you need to do to win a national election is get everyone else, I&rsquo;m excluding from that the hardcore unions people and the radical feminists. But, those are pretty small groups actually. All you need to do is win everybody between the food stamp dependent category and the hedge fund beneficiaries and you become president. Why doesn&rsquo;t the Republican Party make a play for that group? The middle of America? Become the middle class party, that&rsquo;s a winning strategy and it&rsquo;s not that complicated. (8:58)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>I will say to that, Tucker, that the reason they&rsquo;re not doing that and the reason they don&rsquo;t assume a more populist or nationalistic view on economics and so forth is because hundreds of billions of dollars are made on open borders and bad trade deals. So, the big money, the big, big money in both parties, will try to destroy Donald Trump, some way, somehow. I don&rsquo;t know what they&rsquo;ll do. I don&rsquo;t know whether it&rsquo;ll be a Trump indictment, who knows.&nbsp; I just think anything could happen because he&rsquo;s such, and again he represents what the people have been saying they want for years and years and years, and they just won&rsquo;t get it from the politicians, so he just represents that for the moment. But, if someone, if it&rsquo;s him or it&rsquo;s someone else, that person has to be killed off &ndash; I&rsquo;m saying figuratively here. Imagine if we actually started doing different types of trade deals, imagine if we did enforce immigration law. The people would actually really like it. But, they&rsquo;d hate it &ndash; the billionaire class would hate it. It&rsquo;s ironic that a billionaire is actually pushing both policies, when it would hurt most billionaires. (10:00)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Carlson:&nbsp;</strong>Exactly. I mean, in some sense he is freed up, in a profound sense he&rsquo;s freed up from the normal calculations because he&rsquo;s rich enough that it doesn&rsquo;t actually matter that much to him. So, he&rsquo;s probably in some ways less greedy than most politicians. And, I would also say he&rsquo;s more transparent. There is something, the one thing you can say about Trump, and I&rsquo;m hardly endorsing Trump, but you look at Trump and you&rsquo;re like there&rsquo;s no mystery to where he&rsquo;s coming from. He&rsquo;s just fully out there. You don&rsquo;t look at him and think what kind of weird calculations are going on behind the scenes. What is that really about? He&rsquo;s like a rapper. He&rsquo;s like here&rsquo;s what I&rsquo;m about, I&rsquo;m about being back, I&rsquo;m about winning, I&rsquo;m about ramming my victory down your throat. Ok, cool, I get that. I look at Hillary Clinton and I&rsquo;m like, what&rsquo;s her real agenda? Or, some of the Republicans&nbsp; - why are you really in this? (11:20)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>Why are you running? And, again, you feel like you&rsquo;re boosting Trump, I&rsquo;m analyzing how a guy came out of nowhere to turn this race upside down. And, if people don&rsquo;t see what this represents, then they&rsquo;re obviously not seeing the nationalist movements that are sweeping Europe either. They&rsquo;re not seeing why UKIP and the National Front, why all these movements change politics in Europe and are changing the way the EU is considering its new amendments. All this stuff is happening because people are seeing their way of life erode, their cultural identity go away, their economic strength deteriorating. And, they&rsquo;re mad as hell. They&rsquo;re like, a pox on both your houses. (12:12)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Ingraham:&nbsp;</strong>Elizabeth Warren, to me, she would be the most likely person to change the race in 2016 for the Democrats. Do you think the Clinton&rsquo;s are still the cockroaches who survive the nuclear holocaust of scandal? (13:25)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Carlson:&nbsp;</strong>She&rsquo;s such a coward, Elizabeth Warren. I mean, she has this message that she claims she believes in that nobody else is really effectively articulating. She could be that person, she could challenge Hillary. And, I don&rsquo;t know what they gave her in exchange for not doing it, but I don&rsquo;t think she&rsquo;s going to get in. As for Hillary, the party&rsquo;s too invested. I mean, you live here, I do too, everybody, all of our neighbors are Democrats and institutional Democrats. They all want to be ambassador of Belgium, they&rsquo;re totally bought in. Hillary is the only person they have. They know she&rsquo;s a terrible candidate. She&rsquo;s phony, she&rsquo;s got all the wrong instincts. But, there&rsquo;s literally nobody else. Bernie Sanders is a joke, obviously. And, so, it doesn&rsquo;t matter what Hillary does. If she sacrificed a child on an altar to a pagan god, they would have to be for her because there&rsquo;s just nowhere to go. If there was an Obama figure, someone half as talented as Obama, who&rsquo;s not a white man. That guy would be the nominee&nbsp;tomorrow. They don&rsquo;t want to nominate Hillary, because they think she&rsquo;s weak. But, they have no choice. They&rsquo;ll stick with her to the bitter end. (13:39)</p>
</blockquote> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Tucker:-Wake-Up-Jeb,-Its-Not-2008/916382579945310055.htmlStaff2015-08-20T17:08:00ZPlanned Parenthood Aborts Babies After Birth, Violates Federal LawStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Planned-Parenthood-Aborts-Babies-After-Birth,-Violates-Federal-Law/-945783301705749927.html2015-08-20T15:38:00Z2015-08-20T15:38:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>Yesterday, the Center for Medical Progress released a&nbsp;<a href="http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/cmp/investigative-footage/" target="_blank">7<sup>th</sup>&nbsp;Planned Parenthood video</a>, continuing to expose the government funded organization for harvesting fetal body parts. The latest video shows former technician, Holly O&rsquo;Donnell,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.lifenews.com/2015/08/19/7th-shocking-video-catches-planned-parenthood-harvesting-brain-of-aborted-baby-who-was-still-alive/" target="_blank">discussing</a>&nbsp;her experience gathering tissue from an aborted child whose heart was still beating.</p>
<p>O&rsquo;Donnell&nbsp;<a href="http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/is-planned-parenthood-aborting-babies-after-birth-51703/" target="_blank">explains</a>&nbsp;she followed her&nbsp;supervisor&rsquo;s instructions, removing the child&rsquo;s brain, even after being shown the baby boy&rsquo;s beating heart. The supervisor then instructed her to &ldquo;cut down the middle of the face.&rdquo; O&rsquo;Donnell emotionally admits in the video, &ldquo;I can&rsquo;t even describe what that feels like.&rdquo; In this moment, Holly O&rsquo;Donnell decided she no longer wanted to be involved with these heartbreaking acts, believing &ldquo;life is not a mistake.&rdquo;</p>
<p>This video not only furthers the discussion of Planned Parenthood&rsquo;s harvesting of organs, but calls into question violation of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002, which defines a baby born alive as one who &ldquo;breathes or has a beating heart.&rdquo; Under this statute, infants born alive or those surviving botched abortions must be granted the same treatment that all other newborns are entitled to under federal law.</p> <br><br>http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Planned-Parenthood-Aborts-Babies-After-Birth,-Violates-Federal-Law/-945783301705749927.htmlStaff2015-08-20T15:38:00ZSantorum Sets Sights on IowaStaffhttp://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Santorum-Sets-Sights-on-Iowa/-729457402811442694.html2015-08-20T15:10:00Z2015-08-20T15:10:00ZPosted By: Staff<br><br><p>GOP presidential candidate, Rick Santorum, assessed his alignment with the Republican frontrunner, Donald Trump. Regarding the Planned Parenthood scandal, Santorum accused Trump of being &ldquo;cloudy at best&rdquo; on moral and cultural issues. However, on other issues, Santorum confirmed his views are very similar to Trump&rsquo;s on immigration and trade. The former&nbsp;Pennsylvania Senator also discussed his campaign, admitting if he does not exceed expectations in Iowa, he will bow out of the race.</p>
<p>As Santorum struggles to gain traction in the polls, Ingraham pointed out that, although Trump has taken the lead on immigration, Santorum has been pushing trade, immigration, and socially conservative ideas since his first presidential run in 2012.</p>
<p><strong>Partial